Engineering Influence from ACEC
Episodes
Friday Aug 20, 2021
Friday Aug 20, 2021
On this week's Government Affairs Update, we are joined by Rodney Slater, former Transportation Secretary under the Clinton Administration and Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Both are now with Washington, DC lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs. In a wide ranging conversation, we cover the status of infrastructure in Congress, how Secretary Buttigieg is doing, and the what lies ahead for Speaker Pelosi in the House as it returns from the August recess.
Transcript:
Host:
Welcome to the Government Affairs Update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, we are very pleased to bring you two experts when it comes to infrastructure to get some interesting perspectives on what's happening right now in Washington, as the bipartisan agreement on infrastructure moves from the Senate over to the House. And I'm joined today by Secretary Rodney Slater and former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster, both of whom are right now with Squire Patton Boggs in Washington, DC. Secretary Slater was Transportation Department Secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Chairman Shuster, in full disclosure, I used to work with Chairman Shuster while he was Chairman of the T&I Committee. Both bring extensive experience here. And I thank you both for joining us today on the program. Thank you very much for coming on.
Secretary Slater:
Thank you.
Host:
I want to start off actually with you Chairman Shuster, because this is, this is kind of an interesting situation we find ourselves in because you spent a significant amount of time and energy as both a member of T&I, and then also as Chairman in pushing a long-term, substantive infrastructure bill beyond just highway authorization. How does it feel seeing this now to be so close to such a generational investment in infrastructure?
Chairman Shuster:
Well, I think it's good. The bill is, is this large - a trillion dollars, it has some positive, real positive things in it. Like for instance, taking the cap off the PABs, that is one thing they've done. They've done some procurement reforms in it. That's positive. And they've also put in a section, I think it's a hundred million dollars that goes to states and locals to help them analyze a big job, big projects, to see if it makes more sense to use the private sector dollars or to or to stay with traditional government programs. And I think that's a thing because I think they're going to find in many cases it may be a little bit cost higher up front, but when you get the private sector involved over a period of time, it usually drives the cost down because the private sector is very much focused on that.
Chairman Shuster:
They did some things in there that I wish they would have eased up on. Some of them, they put some regs in there too, and I believe it's going to make it a little more difficult to build roads and bridges because of some of the things that they put back in or increased. But I think overall the fact that it's a bipartisan bill, it's got a pretty big number. It includes some things that haven't been traditional like broadband, which I think is is something that you've got Republican support for. I just wish my good friend, Peter DeFazio, he didn't, he wasn't able to get a bipartisan bill out of the house. And, and I think we've seen over the last 20, 30 years at Secretary Slater knows transportation bills when they come out on a bipartisan way they pass. And that's what we've seen in the Senate. And I think the House will take it up to pass it also.
Host:
And Secretary Slater, I mean, looking at this bill and how expansive it is and how it goes beyond your traditional roads, bridges and highways and rail systems and the like, you know, what, how, what do you think this means, you know, for the economy?
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. Well, first of all, Jeff, I'm excited about the bill. I mean, it's taken them a long time to make infrastructure week something other than, you know, a tagline to a conference without the action to go along with it. And so I applaud the President, you know, I know the Vice President was involved, and clearly other members of this team Steve Richetti in particular and the entire Congress for really working hard to pull this off. Now I say the entire Congress. So you know, I'm being cautiously optimistic here, but I think with the momentum built by the action of the Senate, that that's a real possibility and I'm, I'm excited about it. I echo the sentiments that the chairman noted about the differences in this bill as relates to bills in the past. You know, this focus on broadband is just essential in this day in time.
Secretary Slater:
And especially in this post pandemic era that we're trying to bring online, but I also applaud the leaders for really giving us a bill that has a lot more resilience focus to it, sustainability focused dealing with some of the climate challenges we face and then issues as relates to equity. And so I think that it's a bill that is future oriented future leaning. There are those who might argue that more needs to be done clearly the Democrats and any Republican that might have that belief will have an opportunity to deal with that with the with the other measures that are being put forward. But when it comes to really doing something that is akin to what we've done in the past, and then sort of building back better, I think that this is an answer to that to that challenge,
Host:
You know, Secretary, you bring up a good point because one of the words has been used a lot is the question of resiliency, and it's just not resiliency against extreme weather, but it's also resiliency for critical infrastructure against external threats. I mean, we're seeing a significant increase in the number of cyber-attacks on computer systems and just critical hard infrastructure. And Chairman you also did a lot of work at T& I on pre-disaster mitigation getting the dollars there and getting things done before the next storm hits before the next tropical storm turns into a hurricane. Do you think the bill does enough? If not, you think that, that, what, what do you think needs to be done in addition, you know, to really what we're looking at here in this bipartisan agreement to really strengthen our infrastructure? Let's start with the Chairman.
Chairman Shuster:
I think the bill does. A good bit in it to help with resiliency, which, you know, as we were talking about back on the committee of how do we build things before they collapse or hurricane blows them down or whatever the case may be. And at the end of the day, you save money by building these things stronger, being able to withstand a catastrophic weather event. So I think it's positive. I think that there, there needs to be more streamlining to get these things done because I just, I feel that as we did in the past, we run into these hurdles to build these things faster and more effectively. But I think overall, it's, it's a, it's a positive thing. It isn't enough, probably not, but it all depends on what if the hurricanes and the tornado seasons and the earthquake seasons and the fire seasons over the next coming years looks like. But I, I think it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Secretary Slater:
I agree with that. And Jeff, if I may, I, I think that the members of the Council really have a big role to play here. I mean, this is not something that's across the finish line just yet, but you know, engineering companies that are in the business of giving us the kind of system we need and deserve going forward, actually spending the resources in a proper way. You have a lot to say about this bill about it's, I mean, people may say shortcomings. I just think it's to be applauded the fact that we've gotten it done. There are other things that could have been done. Maybe a bit more here or there that can be done later. We shouldn't allow the perfect to sort of distract us from the, from the good, and this is a good, good start.
Secretary Slater:
And when it comes to the issue of you know, security and cyber concerns, I mean, we, there's a report in today's paper about the rail system in Iran, possibly being attacked by cyber-attacks. And then just a few months ago some pipeline here in the US and also a ferry system up in the in the Northeast. So we've got these issues to be concerned about, and I'm very pleased, and we're starting to really come to grips with this, both the public and the private sectors to do something about it.
Host:
Yeah. You raise a good point, especially with the rail system in Iran. I mean as some of our larger firms and actually a lot of our medium-sized firms as well, you know, it's a question of designing the best infrastructure possible. And usually today, that means with the rise of AI and machine learning and the like, intelligent transportation systems, which are networked, which are, you know, have to talk to each other that are open up to potential external threat. So the question is designing it in such a way where it's hardened.
Host:
And you're correct to the point that it's good, that we're having the conversation that, that this has to be. And also the fact that our firms are designing not for what is today, but what will be 20 years, 30 years down the line, the bridge is going to last a hundred years for the building on a shore that's going to potentially see a sea level you rise or, or erosion from the beach.
Host:
And those are all things that, of course our members are very concerned about. On the question to pay-fors because this is something which is interesting because when we got the framework, when everybody's wondering, okay, how are we going to pay for this thing? And then through the debate and the amendment debate, you know, they really considered everything from unspent COVID dollars to changing regulations on reporting requirements on cryptocurrencies, but what wasn't really talked about a lot with the user fee and, and, you know, Chairman Shuster, I know, you know, from my experience with you, it was always that simple, very basic argument of saying that if you use the roadways, you should pay into keeping them in good repair, and that user fee consideration. Secretary Slater, you were with the Clinton administration. Of course I was the last time the tax, the gas tax was actually addressed. It seems like we're getting further away from the idea of that user fee model. What do you both see as the future of, of infrastructure funding chairman you know, where do you see things moving?
Chairman Shuster:
Think it's, first of all, look, we made a mistake when the Republicans controlled the house in 2005, I guess when we passed safety loo we, when we were doing this big tax bill, I, you know, what the leadership and try to convince them, instead of giving the average American a $2,000 cut in their taxes, let's do $1,800 or $1,750 and, and deal with the gas tax because that is a user fee. And again, I think they missed the opportunity not to do the user or the gas tax forever, but to do it for a period of time that they can't implement, implement something that's different. And that would be miles travel tax. And they, they, they put some big, they expanded the pilot program, but I really think they were going to be dealing in five years with how are we going to fund the next transportation bill?
Chairman Shuster:
And with this bill, they had to back fill the highway trust fund shortage. It's like $120 billion, and that's going to just keep growing. So, you know, and it's, I believe as a conservative that as you pointed out at the beginning, if you're going to use the system, you need to pay into the system. And I'll just say this for rural America, where I come from, the average, every dollar that a rural community puts in, they get back about a $1.70. So it's a pretty good benefit for rural America for roads and bridges being built across their communities.
Host:
And we also saw last year the number of states that took it upon themselves to increase their own state gas tax that state after state, you know, did something to improve the amount of revenue that was coming in to their own coffers. And no one seemed to pay that political price that everybody expected, that, that idea that boogeyman of saying, if you raise the gas tax, you're going to lose an election. At least the state level never actually materialized. Right?
Chairman Shuster:
I was going to add, I think that number's up to about 35. Yeah. Have done it. And then the real test case was California. Two years ago, I guess was two years ago. Was it less than a year, I guess was a year ago they had it on the ballot and they rejected repealing the gas tax, something like 57 to 43. So, you know, people understand, they want the roads and bridges to be uncongested and they don't want to bust their tires, break a tire, damage their vehicles. So I think people get it if you, if you pitch it in the right way.
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. You know, I, I agree with the Chairman on this. And I, I would say, I was thinking about actually Kentucky, Arkansas, some of the other Southern states in particular where Southern governors, you know, have stepped forward to move these measures.
Secretary Slater:
I was pleased to hear about the reference to California. I mean, I think it makes the case that it's happening across the country. I would offer this in defense of the of the Biden administration in this regard. I think what the president is attempting to do is to sort of rebalance things. And he recognizes that there has been this inequity in the system where frankly, the burden of progress is placed on the shoulders all too often of those who can, you know, either least pay or have the hardest time paying. And I think what he's trying to do here is to say, look, we're not going to raise the tax burden of anyone making less than 400,000 as a couple. That's, that's pretty significant. And so he did not want to raise the gasoline tax for that purpose.
Secretary Slater:
Did not want to go with vehicle miles traveled for that purpose. And I think where he finds himself at this point, it probably is a policy. That is a good one. Now I don't think that it closes the door always to an increase in use of fees. I think it probably such it up where it, at a time in the future, it'll be a lot fairer to maybe do some of that. And I see that, that time coming, but I can see why the president would want to, at this point have significant lines in the sand about what he would and would not want to see. And then, you know, frankly keep his powder drive when it comes to negotiating at an end point where, you know, you have to find closure on these things. And so I think that's a pretty good position to take.
Secretary Slater:
I will note this too, that Jeff you're right, that during the early days of the Clinton Administration, the gasoline tax was raised but the president would note that he made the case that it should be raised to deal with the deficit to put our economic house in order in balance. And then four years later was actually when we had the resources transferred from the general fund to the highway fund. So as to take advantage of that 4.3% increase in the gasoline tax. So it was done in a two-step kind of fashion. And it may be that with the passage of time, we may get to a point where we can support more funding for infrastructure through user fees. I agree with that. But I also think we should test any number of other options too. And I know the chairman agrees with this because we've talked about things like an infrastructure bank. We've talked about other public private financing techniques. I mean, putting it all on the table and then selecting those that best fit the moment is the proper course, I believe.
Host:
It seems like today with the amount of innovative financing available that there are a lot more opportunities to break away from the paradigm of just a simple, you know, either a lockbox highway trust fund, or just all always pulling from the general fund to instead look at other options - P3's whether it's capture or that investment, the reinvestment of potential, you know, I forget exactly what was called chairman, but it was something that you were talking about when you were chairman. It was, it was when, when we bring somebody in to buy something or to lease out an airport....
Chairman Shuster:
Asset recycling.
Host:
Yeah, exactly. How a P3 or asset recycling, something like that. In your conversations with people in government in and out, is that something which seems to be gaining some traction?
Chairman Shuster:
I think you're always going to have to have some kind of governmental component, whether it's a fed state putting money into it, because these deals we're seeing around the beltway here in Washington, DC, I think the Virginia invested about 20% of the money into it to get a cost down where they wouldn't have enormous tolls on those, on those hot lanes or fast lanes. But so I think there's always that component that will always be there, but I think yes, looking at things like an infrastructure bank and because we look at an infrastructure bank and we've been pushing this during this bill, they almost had a piece. It was a very scaled back version of, there was a infrastructure finance financing agency was small and they, they finally pulled it out the end, unfortunately, but I think, you know, folks in your community the ACEC they deal with these TIFIA and RIFF programs.
Chairman Shuster:
And every time I talked to a contractor engineer, they tell me it takes 14 to 16 months to get through this process and it's painful and it's cost a lot of money. And so I think having a true infrastructure bank based on the federal home loan bank, it's a real bank, it's independent chartered by the federal government. They're going to be, they can make loans in 90 to 120 days. And if it's a good project or not, and it's only going to be a component of the, just like a P3 is a component of the financing package. So I think it's time for us to really look at these other ideas, asset recycling where it makes sense. And again, as the Secretary said, what comes next is probably a vehicle miles traveled, but we've got all kinds of barriers and hurdles because folks don't want somebody tracking them. But as far as my son, when he was in his early twenties, he held up his iPhone and said, they're tracking every moment of the day.
Host:
You're being tracked one way or another.
Secretary Slater:
And Jeff, Jeff, can I just say this, I should have mentioned earlier that even when we increased the gasoline tax and the chairman's father was actually in the Congress along with a former secretary and Congressman Norman Mineta. I mean Jim Oberstar, I mean, just a wonderful group of individuals on the House side. I mentioned the House because I want to put the heat on the House to do what the Senate has done that. But, but they also really gave us tools to create some of these innovative financing programs. The chairman mentioned the TIFIA program, the RIFF program, all of that came into being at that time. And again, it was because of a good piece of legislation that gave federal highways and federal transit and all the Department of Transportation and others, the Treasury the ability to, with the private sector to gain insights about how we might fashion programs that resulted in those programs. I think that there are likely to be some measures that can be used in this bill. Even though, you know, it may not be as clear now that will help us to tap some of those private sector dollars and the private sector ingenuity that you just have to have as a part of an effort like this. And I think ACEC can be a really big part of that of that effort going forward.
Host:
That's, that's a really good point. And thanks for bringing that up because that's something which, you know, our members need to be pretty strong advocates for this, and they need to take, take their own experience from the private sector, work, working with public sector clients and explaining how they can be more efficient. And that's one of the things we always talk about, qualification space selection. It's kind of that idea of saying that
Secretary Slater:
We are at the lowest price exactly. Qualification over, over cost.
Host:
Secretary Slater, let me, let me ask you as a former Secretary of the Department Transportation, right now, how would you, how would you rate the job that Secretary Buttigieg is doing on selling the agenda?
Secretary Slater:
Well, I don't think it could have been express better than in the post today. That was a, a love piece. Although I thought it was, was balanced as well, because it's all teed up. He still has to deliver it. And yet I've talked about that too. I said, you know, it's great to have a president. Who's talking about infrastructure is great to have, you know, the conduit team that you've got with Polly Totenberg and others there to help you make it happen. But at the end of the day, you gotta make it happen. And I thought what was very telling in the article today, and this is what I really want to underscore is the way that he's made himself available. I mean, to Republicans and Democrats this was actually, I thought set up in his hearing where there were so many members who, you know, they had their issues with him and they, you know, they would take him on, I mean, that's the responsibility I think of the Congress to test the administration.
Secretary Slater:
That's what our three branches of government separation of powers. That's what that's all about. But then almost invariably at the end of the round, you would have a member saying, and I hope that you will be able to come to mind my state. I know that the chairman has had that experience and, and, and to have a, a secretary or a member of the administration say that not only am I willing to do it, I look forward to doing it so that we together can be on the ground with your constituents, looking at challenges you face that's what really gets a member's attention. And that's what gains their respect, that rate. And throughout the article, you could just see just any number of people mentioned in that way. And you know, that they don't all have this, that they don't all agree on everything.
Secretary Slater:
And so I think that he is doing a tremendous job. I think that the article was correct in saying that there was always the likelihood that he would be in the president's cabinet or a member of his team where he selected because of the endorsement and the warm endorsement that he gave to Mr. Biden at a very critical time in his campaign. And then the president saying just off the cuff that he reminded him of his son. I mean, all of those things sort of lining up. And then it was noted that he had some interests, but, you know, the president gets a chance to choose. And he said, look, I think that you can best help me and help the country serving in this capacity. And I would say that that the former mayor Pete now, secretary Pete has not disappointed. I'm very, very pleased with the way he's gone about his work. And I think all of these relationships, they're going to pay dividends in the short term and the longterm, and they'll pay dividends for him or his team, and clearly for the the president as well. And so I'm, I'm very, very pleased
Host:
Chairman. You've worked with a number of secretaries. Where would you put him?
Chairman Shuster:
I, well, first I think the, you know, Secretary Slater is right on target saying, I think he's done a pretty good job. He's measured when he speaks to, you know, to the media. He's not, you know, throwing bombs out there, which I think is important, especially on an issue like transportation and infrastructure. I think, I think he's also, he's, he's obviously bright. I think we did. He demonstrate that in the debates, I was always impressed with them. Didn't always agree with where his policies were, but I smart he's young, hopefully that makes him want to think outside the box. It says to the secretary of Slater's point, you got to get it done, man. It's great. You got to having a bill here, but you're the guy that's going to have to make that department start to hum.
Chairman Shuster:
And I think too, that, and this is, I forget who said this - might have been Secretary Slater, or maybe Secretary Skinner said, this is the first time I can remember that the Secretary of Transportation was a presidential candidate. So he's got his own platform of followers. They're saying, Hey Secretary, Pete, you know, we love the guy we were with him when he was running for president. So I think that gives you a whole different platform to be able to get out there and go around the country, but to Secretary Slater's point, he's absolutely right. Going into members' districts, talking to members. I think I think what I've heard from a number of the, at least the moderate Republicans that said, he's great, great access to him, he would call them up. He would, you know, talk, talk through the issues, what they thought were important. So I think that's really important. I know the Secretary Slater did it. I know Ray LaHood did it. You know, through the years I named Sam Skinner, when he would have him out on a conference, he said, he sat down with a members' leadership of the House and the Senate different committees once a month and had breakfast with him. So he, you know, he stayed in touch with him. So I think that's important.
Host:
And I mean, if this does, if he does land this and like you said, you gets it done. He's going to be sitting on, I mean, Jeff Davis from Eno, kind of doing a rack up on Twitter. And it seems like he would have in competitive grant funding, almost the amount will be quadrupled over what is, what is, what has been in the past almost about 24 to $33 billion, depending on exactly what gets through appropriations. I mean, that's a massive war chest to sit on. That's a political weapon as well. Now I think you meet that point, you know, being a former candidate, he's young, he's got aspirations. I, you know, for the Secretary, I mean, how, how, what advice would you give to sit on that record amount of competitive grant funding?
Secretary Slater:
Well, I, I would say it a little differently. I would say Jeff, don't sit on it.
Host:
Yeah. Send it, spend it.
Chairman Shuster:
I would agree the secretary - right out the door.
Secretary Slater:
You know, all of the meetings up to this point where you go out and you say, oh man, this would be a great project to fund, that's one thing. When you can go back a little later with all of those resources and say, this is a great project to fund and we're going to fund it. That's a lot better. First of all, you basically say I'm here with the Congressman who is going to make an important now, because it's all about continuing to build those relationships. And I think that I think the secretary is going to really have a wonderful time with members of his team doing just that. And, and, and frankly, I think he'll be creating opportunities really for the president, the vice-president, you know, maybe even a secretary of grand home and others to do that same thing as well. Because the, the key is to not, you know, it's, it's not to sit on it and it's also not to gloat in it. I mean, it's all about really doing the business of the American people and getting everybody involved. And I, I think as a mayor, he's going to understand a former mayor. He's going to just understand that instinctively.
Host:
And Chairman, I mean, you were great at this. I mean, you made sure both as Chairman and then also back in the ninth district of making sure that everyone at every level of government was included in those announcements, because to underscore the fact that everybody from county commissioner all the way up to member of Congress had a part to play.
Chairman Shuster:
Well and that's the Secretary's point with the department that the Secretary of Transportation, he may not go down to that granular. When you're a member of the House, you need to go to the township supervisors, have them sit in there with you or whoever it is because it's you know, it, it helps it helps everybody out. And so I think this is, as the Secretary said, you get the stuff out the door. And I believe he's going to get it in places that need like rural Pennsylvania, if he does some good work in rural Pennsylvania, the next time around in elections. I mean, the Democrats win Philadelphia and Pittsburgh big, but if they can diminish how big they lose in the, in the center of the state than it, it's better for their candidates. And again, there's, there's good projects out there for everybody to be able to participate.
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. And Jeff before, before we go on, I just thought about this. I do think that that Senator Schumer should be given some credit here as well. And I think it was very significant that you had, you know, 19 Republicans, including the minority leader. And I just think you know Majority Leader Schumer and Minority leader McConnell. I just think that they, they deserve a lot of credit here. And I know when the chairman was in office, these were the kinds of victories that you really relish where it was not just the chairman, but it was the ranking member and, you know, the other members of the committee and leadership and really down to the last person coming on because of seniority coming on the committee.
Secretary Slater:
So I think that manifested itself on the, on the Senate side as well. And, and look, you've got that Brent Spence bridge in the Ohio Kentucky area on I-75 that's going to get some attention now, much needed attendance. And that's very important to the constituents in that region.
Chairman Shuster:
And it won't be lost on anybody that Rob Portman was the chief, negotiator.
Secretary Slater:
No doubt about it.
Chairman Shuster:
And he's from the Southwestern and Cincinnati area.
Secretary Slater:
We were honored at one point that he was a member of Squire Patton Boggs too. I think I should, we should say that, you know, years ago,
Host:
Well, I have two final questions. One, I want to ask the Chairman, because now we're looking at the house, we've got the INVEST Act. You made the point that, that it wasn't as bipartisan as previous bills have been at least on the vote total coming out. You know, there's, there's some argument being made about, okay, take the Senate bill up and just get it done. Your experience working across from Chairman DeFazio for a number of years. I mean, he's been very vocal on some areas of policy that are not in the bill, dealing with climate, also dealing with resiliency, do you see him letting leadership kind of move this forward or use without the opportunity to amend it. Or do you think he's going to want to have that formal conference, he's going to want to have the opportunity for the house to put his stamp on it?
Chairman Shuster:
Well, he's already, he's already given up on a conference because he realizes you go to conference and this thing will never get done. So I think it's going to come over. I think there's the potential for being a couple of amendments, but they're going to be very few and they've got to be something that's agreed to by the, basically the 69 senators that voted for it. So it can be things that, you know, are correcting things and maybe the Senate didn't do right. Because that always occurs, but I don't think you're going to see anything major. And I think the DeFazio, Chairman of DeFazio is going to now focus on getting more dollars to put in these different areas that he has that he, that he supports very much. And that'll be some of these things like resiliency. And, but again resiliency and some of the climate change policies, but he can't change the policy and budget reconciliation, but he can plus up plus up the money or pick the money from one to another, but he can't change policy. So I think he's going to be very focused on that.
Host:
And just a state of play question for you both to kind of round out the conversation. So right now the current state of play in the House Speaker Pelosi has floated a dear colleague letter, but essentially says that she wants to try to twin both the budget resolution to the infrastructure bill in the rules package, which means that voting on one is voting on both. That's gotten some pushback from moderate Democrats. How do you see this playing out? Do you think that it is going to be a twofer or do you think that you know, there's going to be an agreement to allow infrastructure to go first and then the budget reconciliation? I mean, how do you see the state of play in the House coming at the end of the month?
Chairman Shuster:
I think she's in a very tough spot. She's got her progressives, they're saying they're not voting for it unless they vote on the big package. And she's got her moderates saying, we're not going to vote on that big package, you need to pair it down. And by the way, we also want to vote on this thing. So I think she's in a really tough spot. She can't afford to lose more than what, three votes, four votes? So she's in a tough spot and I'm not sure how to work out. I don't think it's going to happen. Well, I know for sure it's not going to happen at the end of this month because they're just coming back in the House, to vote for the budget, which will pass. And then they they're coming back September 20th. But I think if she's got this fight to keep them paired some way somehow you know, one goes, first, one goes second kind of thing.
Chairman Shuster:
She'd probably be, I would bet on Nancy to get it done, but I don't think it's going to look the same you know, at the end of August as it does at the end of October. I mean for these two bills. The infrastructure is going to stay basically the same. It's how big the other package will be.
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. You know, I'd pick up on the comments of the Chairman in that regard. I think that if I were going to bet on anyone getting it done, I would bet on the Speaker. But that doesn't mean that you cannot acknowledge that it's going to be a heavy, heavy, heavy lift. I, you know, I just think that first of all, I, I just, I don't think we, and I think, I think she took note of this.
Secretary Slater:
I, I don't think you can just dismiss the significance of the bipartisan vote in the Senate and the size of that vote. I mean, that was, that was very significant. I didn't know that the numbers would be that high. I mean, I would, I was basically counting on 10, 11 maybe. Yeah. But that was it signaled that they would, because I think the highest we got with those who were sort of saying, well, maybe it was about 11. And so I think it bodes well for a number of things that are important to a number of people beyond infrastructure. I mean, I think you've got a criminal justice reform opportunity here. I think you might have something on voting. And I think that you know, the, the Speaker has all of that to navigate and to balance and to negotiate.
Secretary Slater:
And I just think she ultimately gets it done, but it'll be very, very difficult. I'd also like to say just in support of a Chairman DeFazio, I think he's done a tremendous job as well. I think that his effort was necessary, even though it was a little partisan. And I think, you know, it cut against what his natural tendency was. I mean, and that was to work with your Ranking Member to kind of work through, you know, the process in a way that is, you know, institutionally sound and, and frankly an effort, a way that he'd been a part of for so many years. But I think that what he recognized was that he had to really help the Speaker in speaking to the progressive wing of the party in a way that would keep it engaged. And you know, and I think engaged is probably the best way to say it and they are engaged.
Secretary Slater:
Now you've got this process going now where the various you know, parts of the party will express itself and she'll have to hear all of that, not dismiss any of it. And then carefully, you know, bind it all together with, I think the ultimate argument and that is don't let perfect get in the way of the good, I really think that it comes down to that and let us survive for another fight. And, you know, it's, it's acknowledged that some of that fight in the future will have her being supportive of others who will be at the helm. And I think she will say, look, stay with me. And you know, I've just tried to be as open as possible to make sure that all opinions are heard, all arguments are given an airing and I believe this is the best we can do. And I think that's what it ultimately is. That's what the final question is. And then the votes are counted and I don't think you take a breath until the last vote is cast, you know, so, and as, as the chairman said, it's a three vote - I mean, she's got three votes to [inaudible].
Host:
Yeah. Well, it's going to be an interesting end of August. It's been an interesting August to begin with. I mean, so let's, let's get it done. Hopefully this can get this voted on and passed before the beginning of September. And, and that would be a great thing. So I really appreciate your time and your insight because you both been there you've worked on these issues. You have great insight that I know our audience of member firm executives loves to hear. So thank you for taking the time both of you. And of course, Rodney Slater former Secretary of Transportation is a partner at Squire Patton Boggs now. And of course, Chairman Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and representative of the of the ninth congressional district or the ninth as it were before redistricting - a Senior Policy Advisor at a Squire Patton Boggs as well. And again, this has been the government affairs update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Thanks for being with us. We'll going to see you next time.
Friday Jul 16, 2021
Friday Jul 16, 2021
ACEC was honored to welcome Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA06) to the program to discuss a variety of topics including infrastructure, her work as a founder of the Women in STEM Caucus in the House and her own experience as an engineer in Congress.
During the interview, Rep. Houlahan discussed a number of bills she is working on to get more people into the STEM pipeline, including the STEM RESTART Act, which she introduced along with Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN) and Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), which is aimed at funding mid-career internships, or "returnships" for mid-career workers seeking to re-enter the STEM fields. More information on this legislation can be found here.
Rep. Houlahan is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which endorsed the bipartisan agreement on infrastructure. We discussed that, as well as the PPP FAR credits clause issue, which ACEC is heavily engaged on through our advocacy team.
Friday Jan 08, 2021
Friday Jan 08, 2021
ACEC's Government Affairs team joined Engineering Influence for the first Government Affairs Update for 2021.
Make sure to like and subscribe to Engineering Influence so you never miss a weekly update from our GA team.
Friday Aug 28, 2020
Friday Aug 28, 2020
Engineering Influence and the ACEC Research Institute welcomed WSP's John Porcari onto the show to discuss his work with the ACEC Research Institute on the New Partnership on Infrastructure and Accelerator for America's new report: "A Playbook for a new Infrastructure Partnership."
Host:
Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast by the American Council of Engineering Companies. It is my pleasure to welcome John Porcari to the program. John is a senior advisor at WSP and has an impressive history, both as the Deputy Secretary of Transportation in the Obama administration, where he was second command to then Secretary Anthony Foxx. And before that, John served two terms as Maryland Secretary of Transportation. His experience in program management, planning, design, and construction delivery is widely sought after by elected officials and policy leaders across the political spectrum. And it's fair to say that his insights and advice are of great value to presidential candidates, which comes up to a sharp focus this year with the general election. Mr. Porcari is now with ACEC member from WSP, where he oversees the firm's advisory services.
Host:
And not long after the ACEC Research Institute was established, WSP suggested that one of the first projects the group could undertake was the new "Partnership for Infrastructure," which is a program that's also supported by ACEC member from HNTB. Now, the Partnership's focus was to interview mayors across the country to better understand local and urban infrastructure challenges and develop a playbook of actionable recommendations. And when the project started in early March, there was a lot of buzz about the potential for an infrastructure bill, but no one could have imagined the disruptive impact of COVID-19. And on top of that, how urban protests would make us all think more about the state of America's cities. Los Angeles-based Accelerator for America interviewed the mayors for the playbook over the course of the Spring and assembled the recommendations and led the socialization of the recommendations and various online forums. The ACEC Research Institute participated in the process as an advisor and a financial supporter, but it doesn't necessarily endorse all the recommendations, but the playbook provides a great value for, firm executives and leaders in the engineering and the A/E/C space. It provides a lot of access to gain key insights into the tough local challenges facing our cities. The mayors are looking for problem solving partners to address complex societal needs. In some cases they want consulting help before they even have projects identified. Also the complexity of project finances, much more challenging today, and simply identifying funding for a list of projects. We all know what COVID-19 and the crunch on state and municipal budgets has really done to the industry. Now, this playbook is called the community serving infrastructure, a playbook for a new infrastructure partnership, and it can be found@acceleratorforamerica.org. The link to that document as well as supporting documents will be added up to the show notes on this episode.
Host:
That was kind of a long introduction kind of setting it up here, John, but I want to give you the opportunity. Number one, thank you for coming on. And number two, you know, for us in the beltway, you are well known as an expert in public administration, infrastructure transportation for those outside of the beltway who are politically active and are engaged in the A/E/C industry. Can you tell us a little bit more about your major interests and, and in, in, in the field and, you know, the turning points in your career that kind of got you to this point?
John Porcari:
Sure. Jeff, and thanks for having me here today. I, I've been very lucky in my professional career, in both the public sector and the private sector and in the public sector, as you pointed out, sort of at the local level, the state level is the Secretary of Transportation at the federal levels, Deputy Secretary of Transportation. And now in the private sector working to help clients get these projects across the finish line which is harder and harder. And we can talk about this a little bit, some of the things that are holding it back, but what's motivated me through my whole career is infrastructure is economic development. I started my public sector career as an economic development person working on major projects. And the more time I spent on economic development, the more there was a transportation and infrastructure linkage to it.
John Porcari:
So it's kind of a natural crossover into transportation. And that's especially true at the local level. We have this great system in the U S at the federal state and local level where each level of government has various responsibilities under our Federalist system, but we sometimes forget that the real actions at the local level. So the project decisions are at the local level, the priorities are established at the local level, and then you have to work your way through what can be sometimes some very difficult federal processes and regulations, for example, to get those local priorities built. So one of the reasons that we were very interested in working with Accelerator for America and the Research Institute to actually join us in that endeavor was we wanted to take a local lens to it and hear directly from mayors of big as the city of Los Angeles. And as small as cities like South bend and Waterloo, Iowa what on the infrastructure side they would like to change and this playbook we've put together some very specific recommendations through that local lens. That'll really help all kinds of infrastructure projects.
Host:
Absolutely. That's something which, you know, echoes throughout the country. I mean, my personal experience was in Congress with former Chairman Shuster, both in the personal office and then a committee and in the personal office, in his area of Pennsylvania, it was always economic development. It was always, you cannot have growth and opportunity without infrastructure, which naturally just tied directly into roads intotransportation networks, because the two are intertwined. And, and those decisions at the local level at the County municipal level really are the things that shape what that economic development is going to look like. So having a playbook, having some kind of a document, which looks and focuses in on the needs and the requirements of mayors and of people who are really active in local government is, is critical because it's not all at the top. It's not all federal. How, how did the accelerator for America? How did, how were they chosen to do this project? Why were they kind of the, the ideal group to, to undertake this?
John Porcari:
It's a great question. We began this discussion, this journey, essentially trying to take a local view to infrastructure by talking to some of the think tanks in the Washington area, some of the larger established organizations and it was such a different kind of view for them that they had trouble getting their heads around it. And so again, together with the ACEC Research Institute we had been working with Accelerator for America on specific projects. And as opposed to a think tank, the Accelerator is known as a do tank. These are mayors like all mayors and County commissioners and County councils that are out there working these issues every day. And, you know, if it works and, you know, if it doesn't at the local level, there's no hiding it. So a believer or not no one has done this before taking this local lens to infrastructure and tried to change federal regulations and requirements and programs to fit local needs rather than the other way around, rather than the experience of mayors and County commissioners across America is you have to kind of force fit what you're trying to do at the local level into whatever federal silo is out there.
John Porcari:
So we took the opposite approach Accelerator turned out to be the perfect partner for it. And the interviews, which were part of the process with mayors across the country, Republicans, Democrats, independents - party had nothing to do with it. Infrastructure had everything to do with it. And it truly is one of the bipartisan issues out there. We heard some common themes that turned into these recommendations in the playbook. Some are very specific, and frankly, some of them are relatively easy to do and would make the infrastructure work at the local level. So much easier, so much more freedom to adapt to local conditions.
Host:
Absolutely. It's really a paradigm shift because so much of the time we're focused on federal policy and programs. And those are developed, you know, with, with some thought and input from state DOT, administrators and such, but really it's, it's never given that focus from the local area because, you know, their needs should really bubble up and shape that policy, because if you're able to solve a lot of the problems with the local level, and a lot of the things that the consulting industry engineering consulting, engineering industry can come in and help in that process as well, understanding how to apply solutions to the challenges that are facing at the local level. It can speed project delivery can improve policy. At the national level, it seems like a natural model that hasn't been followed a lot by Congress. It's an interesting thing.
John Porcari:
That's exactly right. And, and the members of ACEC, I think could be very helpful in this and the the at the local level mayors and their counterparts don't have the luxury of thinking in the silos that the federal government operates in. And as you point out, the reality is that innovation doesn't trickle down from the federal level, it bubbles up from the local level and some of the more successful infrastructure work and infrastructure policies, and even projects have been local decisions that aggregate into a national system. And if, if you think about goods movement, if you think about moving people safely and efficiently they're really thousands of local decisions that together make the national policy not the other way around. We tried to reflect that in the playbook and make sure that the mayors were heard loud and clear on what their priorities were in our, in of course it varies all over the country based on local conditions, but to a person, they, they understood the fact that it's economic development it's quality of life, of their communities, it's building the economic future.
John Porcari:
So in one example, the highway right away is not just right away to them. It's, it's how their water and wastewater systems are conveyed as storm stormwater management. It's where broadband is bringing an economic future to these communities. And so they don't think of it as the state highway departments right away. They think of it is their economic future.
Host:
Yeah. And those, those city planners, those, those you know, local planners have to look forward on, on where's the growth and opportunity going to be, where can we actually create the economic development and how can we use all of those pieces of the infrastructure puzzle together to more effectively create jobs, or attract businesses? One of the big issues that we had in central Pennsylvania was trying to get headquarters with operations and, and trying to do it in such a place where you not only had right away or, or thoroughfare, but then you also have the actual wastewater, water, infrastructure, broadband, all those different aspects. And it's, it's, it's the, at the local level, you see more of the picture than you do if you're just sitting, like you said, in those silos, and you're just looking at one or two different things now, when this started, and we didn't have any idea of what was around the bend. I mean the focus of this project must have been impacted by the pandemic. And then, you know, the social issues layered on top of that kind of two part question, the first is how did it change scope, but then, you know, how did it, how did it also expand to, put a focus on to urban areas of, and their infrastructure needs and how they may have been underserved in the past and looking at what they might need to rebuild after the pandemic?
John Porcari:
It's a great question, Jeff. And we got some great direct input from these mayors. And so is one example. We talked to dozens of mayors across the Heartland of America small and medium sized cities where they're grappling with all kinds of issues, but, but again, trying to build an economic futureit makes sure they could do it. And as we started this project, the pandemic hit so it did change the infrastructure priority to some extent, for example one of the medium sized Midwestern cities that we were working closely with found that to do online instruction for their public school district almost 40% of their students didn't have access to broadband. You can imagine what that did to the priority of broadband relative to some of the other infrastructure priorities that they have at the same timethings like some of the transit service and planning for a future transit capacity changed as well, knowing that that economic lifeline of transit, connecting people to opportunities is, is every bit as important in some of these smaller jurisdictions as it is in large areas.
John Porcari:
And it was a go-no-go item for employment in many ways. So the, the it also at the same time with some of the storm events and natural disasters that we've had in the country while we were developing this, the whole idea of resilience, which really means something in practical terms terms at the local level resiliency is being able to operate your infrastructure, making sure your roads aren't flooded out and your water and wastewater systems work. And you actually have electrical power that can survive these events is something that is, is a very practical value at the local level and something that these mayors are very focused on. So as opposed to an esoteric discussion at the national level about resiliency and climate change the practical, nuts and bolts part of it is it changes infrastructure priorities at the local level. They see the facts on the ground and they have to respond to them. In real time.
Host:
I noticed in the last Congress near the end, the T&I Committee specifically was looking at a lot of different areas related to resiliency, and the word came up a lot more. But I don't think there was a complete appreciation for what it meant. Do you think that these stories and these recommendations from mayors can help fully flesh out federal law makers understanding of the importance of resiliency and what it means? It's not a political term, it's an actual, this is something that has to be considered.
John Porcari:
Yes, Jeff that's exactly right. It is not at all a political term. It's not some esoteric discussion at the local level. It's it's the practical impact of flooding where, you know, the prudent thing to do on the redesigned side is to upsize the the culverts. It's, it's where, you know, that having buried utilities makes them much more resilient for outages and storm events. The practical impact is something that we saw very clearly and heard very clearly from the mayors where they want to make sure that they're squeezing every bit of value out of harder and tax dollars for this infrastructure by making a durable. And future-proofing it to the extent that you can. So one of the great things about applying this local lens to infrastructure is it takes the kind of sterile Washington philosophical and political discussion out of this and puts the practical impact in there where these are people across the political spectrum, working side by side, acknowledging that building more resilient infrastructure is the smart thing to do from an economics point of view. And from obviously from a service delivery point of view for your city.
Host:
Absolutely. I know that there are four broad, which kind of form the focus of the document, and that's maximizing investment for a job and small business growth, empowering localities with effective tools and processes, funding, and financing for community serving infrastructure and making transformative investments for more resilient future, going back to the resiliency part, taking kind of that last one, since we're talking about that, like you said, the impact of, of, of looking at the local level and, and saying, like you said, you know, these power lines, you know, or what have you should be placed underground, or the covert should be made larger. I mean, that definitely will have an impact on those budgetary decisions. And, and especially with the way that the States are going right now having that cash crunch related to the pandemic how do you think the document's going to come into play with that?
John Porcari:
It's a great question. So there are some very specific recommendations related to resiliency, for example, that, that helped carry the argument for these cities to, to do things differently, but it also calls for a reset at the federal level. It's the, it's the local government saying, for example, that you need to form a federal infrastructure planning council. We have all of these federal agencies that don't even talk to each other, let alone work together on a regular basis at the local level, you don't have the luxury of, of building things in silos, organizational silos, this federal infrastructure planning council would be a forcing mechanism to get the different federal agencies like the Corps of Engineers responsible for all of our inland waterways, great lakes inland maritime transportation working with other federal agencies where they very seldom interact in practical terms where they do it's at the local level where you have local representatives and a local project that forces them to work together.
John Porcari:
So the idea is at the state and federal level to, to really highlight what some of those disconnects are, and in, in a very practical way, show how we can do a better job. And again, it recognizes the reality that's that's in our constitution and in the way we operate under federalism, but is not recognized in our institutional structures, which is those decisions and choices are made at the local level. And they should be but you don't have a federal partner that's necessarily recognizing that. And the federal share of funding in many cases in percentage terms is declining every year. So you have this ironic position of more local funding going into these projects, less federal funding, but federal regulation that makes it difficult to do business.
Host:
So how would that, how would that planning council be structured? Would that be executive level, or would that be kind of a congressional action? How do, how, how how's the playbook kind of see this happening?
John Porcari:
Well, it can be done a couple of ways, what the playbook focuses on are practical solutions. So for that planning council, the deputies level that the deputy secretaries and deputy directors in the federal departments by definition are the chief operating officers. And on, on important issues, they function is a deputy's council where they actually get together and work through issues. And what, what the playbook is saying is that for infrastructure planning at the deputy secretary at the deputy director level, we really should have that kind of coordination across the executive branch. Now, as you well know, from, from, from your background, these individuals report to all different committees of jurisdiction, but that shouldn't be the local government's problem. Right?
Speaker 3:
The whole idea is, is that you have the, the executive branch agencies working with each other to make it easier for the project choices and to build those projects at the local level.
Host:
So formalize the informal working groups into an actual council that meets and discusses infrastructure and creates a liaison for the States and for local governments to bring the ideas up, to be discussed at that operational level. That's right. And give them a specific agenda on where those barriers to cooperation are, where some of the loan programs are too restrictive and can't be used. The what you tend to do at the local level is try to get as much different kinds of infrastructure into every project that you do at the federal level. It's more of kind of a rifle shot approach where you have very narrow programs. So part of the agenda for that planning council for example, would be to broaden those programs to think more holistically to, again, frankly get better value out of these public investments by making the infrastructure more holistic and more comprehensive. It sounds fairly common sense. So, so how would, how would that, for example, you know, how would these policies accelerate, you know, improvements really that the brick and mortar infrastructure and the people really care about the, you know, you have the drinking and the wastewater, of course you know, Flint was, you know, still is the poster child for that, but then, like you mentioned earlier, we have, we have broadband, we have the issue with the gas tax and we have declining revenues, but have increasing, you know, via electric vehicle market, but we don't have a national electric vehicle charging infrastructure, you know, that's something which has to be addressed. And, and the other, those transformative areas that seem to be happening at the state and local level, of course, the States that are really ahead of the curve and trying to be centers of innovation and are starting to think of transportation, not in transportation sense, but as in mobility and, and, and as a holistic way of looking at things how would these policies help accelerate that the federal level?
John Porcari:
Yeah, it would do. It would happen a couple of ways. One I mentioned, which is most infrastructure projects of any size are not funded anymore. They're financed. And that's, that's a very important difference where it may be a 50 or 70 year lifespan piece of infrastructure that has a 35 year loan against it. Broadening the eligibility of those loans would be one thing, expanding the capacity of the federal loan programs, whether it's for highway or transit, water or wastewater. If you just look at the lead pipe and lead contamination issue, the, the existing federal programs capacity for loans is only a fraction of what you would actually need. And it's not just Flint, Michigan it's cities and towns across the country and rural areas. It's also other federal policies. So electric vehicle tax credits can be expanded, accelerated depreciation, all the kind of tax policies that actually trigger private sector investment in infrastructure or public private partnerships is, is something that can be encouraged through these recommendations. And the idea was to be w was, was to try to address the infrastructure needs and be agnostic on whether it's publicly addressed or privately addressed, or a partnership between the two but across the spectrum to try to identify some of these very specific recommendations that that can actually make these things happen.
Host:
Yeah, and that's a very important point because earlier in the couple of months ago, we did a, a round table discussion on the future of funding and transportation. And we had some, some policy think tank guys. We had Jeff Davis and Eno, and we had some thought leaders from Harvard. We had kind of a mixture and everyone agreed that, you know, reliance on farebox revenues especially now. I mean, you can't do it, you can't do it. There has to be a, there's not one solution. There has to be a number of different solutions to broaden the type of financing that you can actually go for for these projects that, you know, just relying on trust, run revenue, for example, is, is something which is, which is difficult in a time of declining revenues. Is there a recommendation on the trust fund within the document?
John Porcari:
It doesn't make a specific recommendation on the trust fund. The participants in this study, like everyone else acknowledged that's that it has to be changed. The system has to be changed. There's no, there's no trust in the trust fund anymore, right? If the Congress has to keep putting general funds and other monies into the trust fund, it's actually not a trust fund where and especially with the recession related to the pandemic, we're seeing trust, run revenues declining very rapidly. But the idea would be to at the local level and the federal level to open the aperture for more innovation on the funding and financing side. And there are jurisdictions that have limitations on how they can raise local funds. These local bond issuances and referenda and local other kinds of local self-help initiatives are limited in many places yet.
John Porcari:
They're actually the primary funding source of the local funds for many of these infrastructure projects. So opening it up across the board and making a better case that infrastructure is actually an investment. Yes, it's an expenditure, but infrastructure given its lifespan and given the economic activity that generates is actually a good investment. Whether it's airports and air service highway transit, the utilities that provide services you simply can't have economic growth and the quality of life we all want without that infrastructure investment.
Host:
And, and I know there, there are a couple of ideas about state local road transfers and federal funding for betterments. Can you go a little bit more into that? You know, what problems are we solving by transferring road ownership from, from state to local governments and, and what is the focus on betterments about?
John Porcari:
Sure, let me take each of those in turn so that the road transfer part of it is a recognition that the primary purpose of any given road may change over time. So in every state, there are state routes, the numbered state routes that were probably very important from a regional point of view maybe back to the horse and buggy days. But that state route is now main street for a town or city. And in that municipality it's serving a very different local function as opposed to the regional function that was originally built for. And so who would be the best steward of that? Who would use that right away most effectively for all the things we talked about, water and wastewater, broadband, burying electric utilities transit service, maybe dedicated transit lanes inductive charging in the next few years.
John Porcari:
The idea is that some of the functions of those roads, which were much more of a state function in the past local function now, it's not true in every case. The idea is to look at those individually and see where it makes sense it might have been for that state route example, 75% interest state regional traffic before. And it may be 25% now. So who would be the best steward of that? The betterment issue is a really interesting one, the when there's a hurricane or tornado or storm event that does significant damage for example, to our highway infrastructure. There's, there are emergency relief funds from the federal government to rebuild that in this highway example and until not too long ago about eight years ago, you could only rebuild that highway the same way it was built before you could not put in bigger storm drainage culverts.
John Porcari:
You couldn't raise the elevation. The idea of betterment is now accepted and it's federally funding eligible where you could rebuild that highway. And now you can do it with transit. You can pull it out of the flood, plain, you, you can armor it in ways where you're not rebuilding the same facility time after time with federal money, emergency relief money, every time it's common sense, but it's something that literally was not allowed until fairly recently. And so one aspect of resilience is to make sure those betterments rebuilding smarter every time is built into the core of what we do.
Host:
Yeah, that's a really good point and it makes complete sense. And I know, but it's the kind of thing that, that from an, you know, from an industry perspective, when, when a firm like WSP or a firm, you know, another ACEC member firm is brought onto a project, you know, they're of course working as a trusted advisor to their client to be able to say, okay, well, this road is built this way, but what we know of, you know, past events and you know, our expertise that we bring into it is that you should be improving it in a number of ways. And here is our expert consultation on how to, how to do that. And, if that idea is, is adopted by a broader swath of the States, that it means that you're going to have an improvement overall in the length and the value of infrastructure, like you said, stretching that dollar, that taxpayer dollar further, and just rebuilding a road exactly how it was. And it's just going to be washed away or destroyed in an earthquake, or what have you again,
John Porcari:
Right. That's right.
Host:
Now we talked about fund financing. We talked about the betterment issue. I know that the plan has a few deregulatory ideas on, on project delivery and cutting red tape. They include accelerated procurements reviews, the permitting, P3 processing. I, you know, we've heard a lot of these ideas from state officials. Did it really surprise you that a lot of these priorities were also coming from mayors who were interviewed?
John Porcari:
Not really the, the more time you spend with mayors, the more you see that they really are hands on problem solvers. So the one of the specific recommendations shortening the procurement cycle is basically the the city's asking the federal government to do what they've already done. We had a mayor for example, that during the pandemic cut their procurement times by 50% and just did it they're meeting all their legal criteria. It's there's no part of the procurement process that's been compromised, but they literally shave 50% of the time off. And the idea is if you can do that at a local level, it can be done at the federal level too. And it, if you do it at the local level and you don't have a federal partner that also cuts their response time and their review time, it doesn't help because you have to get ultimately get there. Okay. Anyway, so these are commonsense forms that don't really don't compromise the quality or the integrity of the process or the project. But what, what the recommendation is really saying is we can do it at the local level. We'd like our federal partners to do the same
Host:
Now to kind of wrap it up. I know the last areas, it really kind of goes into the job creation and employment issue, which is, which is especially important now with the effects of of the pandemic on, on employment. But the playbook discusses a number of of different areas. Here are the importance of training centers of local and targeted construction hires and support for small and medium sized businesses and, and the importance of, of expanding federal research into a lot of these emerging transportation and, you know, planning and such, where do you see this going? You know, what area in this kind of gets your attention the most?
John Porcari:
Well from a local perspective, this was a really pressing issue as well. So part of it is trying to squeeze again, as much value as you can out of tax dollars, by making sure the money stays in the local economy, to the extent possible. You know, at the end of the day, these infrastructure jobs or jobs you can't export, they are American jobs. And as an industry, there's a lot we can do to maximize that. But it also it also talks about taking projects as an opportunity to move people up the skill scale. So if you are learning a skilled trade from a laborer to say high voltage, electrician or welder is part of that project. You have brought someone into the middle class and doing that. And there's a whole ecosystem that could be helpful to that.
John Porcari:
The community colleges that are operated at the local level, we'll put together a training course for anything there's demand for. And there's a little bit of a chicken and egg aspect of this, where you need to make it, if it's clear, the demand is there for skills training, as part of infrastructure construction, the training will be there through private programs to community colleges, through unions and others, lots of providers but what we have not done and, and you can't do at the local level by yourself is systematically put, put that together into a system that lifts people up that skills ladder and provides better opportunities.
Host:
And that that's, you know, cross jurisdictional, because that's not just, you know, infrastructure or transportation policy, but it's educational policy at the, at the national level. It's how, how do you, how do you make the two kind of fit together, which shows, you know, the size of the task, but also the value of these recommendations to inform especially federal policy makers. Since it's an election year, I can't not ask the question. How has this playbook been received by the candidates have you or anyone else from, from, you know, who were leading this charge brought this to either the presidential campaigns or, or any of the the leadership and at the federal level to say that if, as you're, as you're developing policies, keep this in mind.
John Porcari:
It's a great question. At the beginning of this discussion, I mentioned that this is very much a bipartisan effort by bipartisan mayors. And so the playbook recommendations have been made available across the board people on both sides of the aisle have been briefed on it. I will just tell you from my personal perspective and personal experience and full disclosure, I'm a strong supporter of vice president Biden. The uptake of these ideas and, and concepts behind it has been very positive. There's a recognition that, that again, the innovation's at the local level, the decision making's at the local level, let's make sure we're letting our local elected officials make they know what the right choices are for their jurisdictions. Let's back them up and support them with federal policies that actually help them as opposed to getting in their way.
Host:
That's a really good point. And I think a good, a good area to, to leave it on. John, do you have anything else to add about the playbook? It, we've covered a lot of ground here. We know a lot of the recommendations, but is there anything, any, any final parting thought that our listeners should know going out of it?
John Porcari:
Well, I, again, this is, this is from a local perspective and it's very practical as mayors are. So there, there's nothing in here that can't be implemented ACEC members around the country should really think about how this can help locally. To a person ,the members are working at the local level, helping with those local choices, literally use the playbook for what it's intended to be, which is a way to help you with infrastructure, construction and, and in a more general sense, help make the connection between infrastructure and economic growth and prosperity. And the fact is, you know, if we're honest with ourselves, you can look at infrastructure coast to coast here, if you're honest with yourself, and you look at that infrastructure more than likely it was built and paid for by your parents, or maybe your grandparents, and in some cases, your great grandparents. So, it is just irresponsible of us not to invest in the future. It's the best thing we can do for the country going forward in terms of thinking about the future.
Host:
Yeah, really good parting thoughts there, because I think that one of the things that our members are very busy running their firms are very busy of course, with the work that they have ahead of themselves and running an office from the time of pandemic. But we can't lose sight of the fact that, that from an industry perspective, we're the thought leaders who can help drive these decision making processes at all levels of government that as an ACEC member, as a professional engineer and a business leader, there's a platform and there's expertise that our elected officials can't get anywhere else. And if they're able to use this documentthe playbook as a way to inform their thinking and develop their own thinking it'll help raise the profile of the industry as a whole, which is of course, one of the focuses of the institutes, you know, one of the key missions is to support the growth and the thought leadership of the industry.
Host:
But, you know, from a business sense, it'll, it'll make you more competitive when you're going for business, because you can put that economic argument behind it. You can put that, you know, like non, non partisan political argument to, to tie it all together and justify a project. I guess I do want to put a plug in because the, the ACC research Institute coming up in the, in, in, in next few weeks is going to be delving into aspects of the playbook. We're going to be doing some round tables on the playbook in conjunction with Accelerator for America. And we had our first series of round tables on the future of engineering. They were very successful and we look forward to another successful series coming up in, in only a few weeks but more information on that's going to be coming up shortly.
Host:
So stay tuned. We are going to post up the the, the program on the show notes, we will have a link to the, to the Accelerator for America website. And then of course, that will have the link to the playbook. John, I really appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. And I know our listeners really benefited from hearing your views and your expertise.
John Porcari:
It's my pleasure. And I do want to thank the ACEC Research Institute, and also everyone who's involved in putting this playbook together, because it took a lot of hands to actually get a nationwide perspective here.
Host:
Well hopefully we can have you back on the show a little bit later after we have those round tables and kind of maybe after once we get a better idea of what happens in November, and we get a better idea of, you know, what infrastructure policy might look like and either administration it might be good to revisit these issues. So until then, again, John Porcari, He leads advisory services at WSP, but he is also just a very, very knowledgeable individual when it comes to federal and state and local transportation policy. And thank you so much for being on the show.
John Porcari:
My pleasure, Jeff. Thanks.
Host:
And this has been Engineering Influence a podcast from the American council of engineering companies. We'll see you next time.
Thursday May 21, 2020
Thursday May 21, 2020
Steve Hall, Matt Reiffer and Katharine Mottley from ACEC's Advocacy team joined Engineering Influence for our very first video podcast to give a government relations update on their Rescue, Recover, Rebuild grassroots advocacy campaign and the current status of the PPP program.
Transcript:
Host:
Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast by American Council of Engineering Companies. Today we are bringing a new kind of twist to our podcast. We're in the world of Zoom and COVID-19. We're going to try to do something visual this time and have a government affairs update with our own Steve Hall who has been practically on Zoom since the day started to um bring us up to date on what's going on with the Paycheck Protection Program. I want to give you guys a little bit of an idea of where things stand here as far as the association goes and with our industry on the PPP program. In our latest member survey on May 8th, we found that 88% of respondents reported applying for the program. And 94% of those said that they'd been approved for the PPP program and another 4% are awaiting approval.
Host:
So it was very popular with the industry and 94% let's see here. And just under two thirds, 64% of those firms plan to use all of the loan funding while 22% plan to use some of it and return to rest only 2% right now or are considering returning all of the funds. So it's a program is being accessed by our industry, many other industries. It is a monumental effort by the SBA. This is not an agency that's actually designed to do something like this to take this amount of volume of applications and this kind of money and try to get it out to the economy. It's been going well but there've been issues with guidance. Treasury and SBA have been slow to get some certainty out there with certain aspects of their FAQ. And things have changed over the past couple of days. And Steve, if you want to kind of bring us up to date on, on where the program stands and, and what Treasury and SBA have done and what really, you know, it was going on with the program right now.
Steve Hall:
Yeah, thanks Jeff. Now we're seeing some encouraging developments really over the past week and a lot of anxiety up until now, and it's lingering a bit, but over two issues really. The issue of, of certifying good faith in terms of economic uncertainty, in other words, is, is the firm worthy to, to receive this loan. And I think what we saw released last week was encouraging basically loan holders at $2 million and below are essentially defacto certified by virtue of the size of the loan. And then the guidance goes on to say that for borrowers above that $2 million SBA is going to work with them through a process to help them to to figure out if they can meet that certification threshold, but a much more encouraging tone, a much more deferential tone than perhaps we had seen in, in previous weeks.
Steve Hall:
Where there was a great deal of concern generated about you know, what SBA and the federal government take a very punitive approach to borrowers really outside of what we thought was within the intent of Congress. I think Congress really wanted to be very deferential to to borrowers and try to structure the program as such. So that was a good step on that question of certification and and I expect that we hope we'll be seeing some additional information come out on that. The next issue was loan forgiveness. You know, the core of the program and we did see some information come out earlier this week. You know, the, the application for forgiveness and the kind of data and criteria that SBA is looking for, which gives us a sense of what it was, what it's going to take to get some, most, all of your loan forgiven and some guidance with that.
Steve Hall:
I think we are expecting to see additional guidance, more comprehensive guidance forthcoming. But again, this has been helpful to our firms, to our CPAs, to, to get at least an initial sense of what the agency is looking for to satisfy that question. So, you know, good news over the last week, not a complete catalog of information that we need and where you're hoping to see that relatively soon. And as if history is any judge, you know, it may be that con or SBA and treasury continue to put out guidance in small traunches and then refine that guidance responding to questions from organizations like ACEC. And then at some point we may actually have to go back to Congress if there are structural problems or challenges that are really beyond SBAs per view to to fix where we have to amend the law. We'll do that. But we'll work hand in glove with our members before we do that and work with our CPAs. We've got a lot of very smart people working with us to you know, go through this information and to come up with recommendations that we need to deliver both to the agency and to Congress.
Host:
Because it is a popular program. And I think that the universal call or answer from, from the private sector is that they want it to be a success. So that there's a lot of, you know, it's not a adversarial relationship with, with, but the SBA and Treasury, it's more just informing them of what we need, what we need to actually make this program work as it's intended. So it's good to see that that guidance come out. And again, you know, as we get this information, of course we're putting it out anywhere we can. So we have our Coronavirus Resource page of course, which is on acec.org. It's right on the homepage when you see that. And, and we're making sure to put all this information into our normal communications to members. There's going to be a weekly message coming out from our CEO, Linda Darr. It's going to be focusing on a lot of what Steve just mentioned here and everything's been linked and it's all available for you.
Steve Hall:
And Jeff, just to add to that you know, the education side of ACEC is teed up and ready. We've got a panel of CPAs that will take part in a free webinar. Once that additional guidance comes out, we expect that we'll be well attended and we will redo it as often as we need to and as often as new guidance comes out but you know, but the organization really geared itself around getting that information in the hands of our members as soon as possible so they can make good business decisions. And and we're certainly going to continue with that.
Steve Hall:
And I know that you've been, like I said earlier, you know, you've been busy all day on Zoom meeting after Zoom meeting. We are right in the midst of a larger advocacy push under the Rescue, Rebuild and Recover kind of theme and it's been a virtual grassroots effort. Letters, emails, meetings, Zoom meetings with members of Congress. How many meetings do you think you've been on right now with, with members of the House and Senate with ACEC members across the country?
Steve Hall:
Gosh, I think we're North of total North of 70 meetings so far. And and these are happening. I've been on a few today and I know my colleagues Matt Reiffer, Katharine Mottley have been participating in these as well. And really the message has been coming back has been very encouraging, you know, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. They get it. I mean, they want, they very much want to support a recovery agenda built around infrastructure and you know, there's lingering questions as there always is about how to pay for it. But a great deal of interest in doing this. I think you know, as you've heard me say before, I think Congress is still in emergency response mode and still thinking near term needs. I think what, what may be emerging as the next package of assistance may actually be built around assisting state and local government agencies, DOD, transit agencies things of that nature.
Steve Hall:
Obviously that's something we're very supportive of, you know, anything that will prevent, you know, current projects from being interrupted or shutting down. We want to be supportive of and there does seem to be an inkling of bipartisan support emerging from this approach. So that may be the catalyst for the next package. You know, as, as Katharine indicated, there's sort of hopeful expectation. We might see something in June on that package and and then hopefully, you know, Congress then switches gears and thanks a bit longer term, you know, in a multiyear recovery agenda, you know, built around what Congress has to do this year. They've got to do a surface transportation bill to replace the fast fact by September 30, and they've got to do a big water package. And the Senate stepping out, they, they have reported all of those bills out of committee unanimously. Which is great to see. And and that gives you know, the congressional leaders in the Senate the option to package all of them together into one big package or to move them separately if they wish, but actually to get something done this year, but they got us, they got to move quickly because the clock is ticking.
Host:
Yeah, it's not in their favor. And you mentioned, you mentioned Matt and Katharine and I think they have joined us, so I'm going to switch over to a view and bring them in. And thank you both for joining in. So we have really the the, the feet on the, the, the boots on the ground here for the PPP and surface transportation effort. So Matt and Katherine, thanks for joining the interview here. Steve was going over, a lot of the PPP work has been done. A lot of the guidance coming out and of course the webinars and the meetings with members of Congress, part of our advocacy program. I mean, I know you've been on some of the meetings as well. How do you think they've gone, this is new, it's virtual instead of going actually into somebody's office and talking to somebody, you have a screen like this where you know, you have maybe 10 people or less and a member of Congress. How, how has it compared to what, you know, the traditional shoe leather lobbying that you guys do?
Katharine Mottely:
You know, Jeff, I think that's a really interesting question. I mean it is a different kind of connection. On the one hand you don't get that face to face. You, you can't really read the body language and get and get sort of that better sense of the story behind what they're telling you. On the other hand, I think it has sort of opened up these meetings to a larger swath of our members. The meetings that I've been on have had, you know, 25 members from the state with their senators and for some of them some of those folks may not have been able travel to DC on a normal basis anyway. So, you know, I think that sort of greater access for both, for our members and for the legislators can be a good thing.
Matt Reiffer:
I would agree with that. In the, in the few that I've been on what's nice is you get the Congressmen or the Senator's undivided attention for a block of time. When you're meeting in DC, almost inevitably you get interrupted by votes or committee meetings or markups or important briefings or something. But particularly for the house members who have largely been back in their districts you know, they're not, they're not getting pulled away into those sorts of things. So you get, you know, 20 to 30 minutes of their undivided attention, which is really tremendous. And there, you know, they are so eager to hear about what's going on with their constituents, where their local businesses. So it was valuable for them to hear not just here's our advocacy priorities, but you know, here's what we're working on. Here's what we're experiencing, here's what we're concerned about, you know here are plans for, you know, reopening our offices or keeping our employees safe. Here's the, you know, here's what we're doing, worksite protocols and safety, you know, just a range of things that they care about. And then, yeah, how are the aid packages that we've already approved working for you? Are they helpful? What do we need to change? Cause they want to know. So this has been really valuable input for them.
Steve Hall:
You know, Jeff, Matt made a really good point there with respect to, you know, how certainly our members reviewed on these calls. You know, because there are great conversations with lawmakers and the lawmakers and seeing each one of those faces on the screen and they're often zoom calls like this. Each one of those faces represents a firm that employs many people. So that, that, that ACC member talking is not really talking just for himself or herself. But for all of the folks that work in the firm and and that reality is not lost on lawmakers and the staff that participates on these calls these, these, these contacts resonate and really do have meaning.
Host:
And it's just not, the meetings are fantastic. So I think it provides a, it's a new way of reaching out and talking to your member of Congress in person, virtually in person. Like I said, Katharine, if you have 25 people on a call, it's hard, you're hard pressed to find, you know, 25 people don't get them into an office. Even, even a, even a ranking where a senior Member, you know, their offices aren't big enough to fit 25 people in normally. So being able to get people on a screen, you know, you get more, more bang for your buck there. But then we're also doing the traditional, you know, letter writing. We're doing, you know, emails to Members of Congress and of course, social media activity. Matt, I mean we, we've, we've topped a significant number of compared to, I think the last major push was on tax reform and I think we've kind of eclipsed the number of, of emails and messages sent. What's the last you have the last tally available? I know, I don't, don't want to spring it on you, but I know that
Matt Reiffer:
I don't, but I can click over and check and get them.
Host:
Yeah, no, that would be great 'cause I know that the number is significant.
Matt Reiffer:
Get you real time information. Hang on just a sec.
Host:
Yeah. that would be awesome because again, you know, on the, on the acc.org website you know, you'll see it right there. When you land on the page, you'll see advocacy and that takes you to the R3 - Rescue, Recover, Rebuild advocacy site where you can click to tweet. It has issue sheets. It has social media resources for, for grassroots activism. And it's really a one stop shop for everything that you need to take part in this.
Steve Hall:
You know, Jeff during tax reform. And Katharine knows this. I mean, we generated something on the order of 6,000 contacts with lawmakers and which was far and away bigger than we've ever done. And I think when, when Matt last checked this, we were rapidly closing in on that amount. So this campaign is going to go into the summer and I have no doubt that we're going to Go well beyond what we did previously.
Katharine Mottely:
And you know, Steve, just to add to that, I've heard comments from a couple of our members who remember that advocacy effort during tax reform and part of what they've communicated back is that we didn't realize that we could have such an effect. We didn't realize that our engagement through ACC and contacting our members of Congress could result in such a good outcome. And so a lot of them would have remembered that and taken it forward to this time. And they see that what they do and say and the emails they send can make a difference.
Matt Reiffer:
I just checked - we've got 2,060 member firm advocates who have taken action and delivered just about 6,400 messages to the Hill.
Steve Hall:
That may be a new record right there.
Matt Reiffer:
Tremendous outcome.
Host:
And again, yeah, this is, this is, this is in its early stages. It's going to evolve as the situation evolves. You know, we're calling for of course a focus on an infrastructure based recovery agenda. Of course that's going to be focused again and Steve, like you mentioned, FAST Act reauthorization and WRDA - two pieces of legislation that are must do's must pass bills and they're already teed up. Each chamber is working on its own respect of tracks and as you noted in the Senate, they've been marked out unanimously. There's no real bipartisan schism when it comes to WRDA and surface - they are a lot closer than people think. So the, the continued push by our grassroots to get this through is going to be significant.
Steve Hall:
It's going to be critical. Jeff, not to interrupt cause we've, we're, we're hoping to see how spills emerge in the month of June. And so you know, it'd be great if we could double those numbers in the month of June and and give some additional push behind house lawmakers to, to at least get this out of committee in the month of June and get them ready for floor consideration.
Host:
Absolutely. Well we covered PPP, we covered kind of the advocacy campaign and the, and the work you guys are doing on, on, on the individual member meetings, but then also the webinars and everything else that's going on. I mean it's, it seems like every day there's, there's, there's another webinar or three webinars that we're running to, to make sure we're covered. Anything else to think of as we enter kind of an odd Memorial day weekend?
Steve Hall:
Ah, you know, just, just the, the issues we've talked about and then side issues, you know, we're working to make sure that issues relative to from overhead are addressed and protected. You know, there is a, you know, regulatory action on the part of the department of defense that would require firms that receive forgiven loans to provide their federal clients with a credit to offset those loans. We don't think that really was the intent of Congress. We've pushed back and we actually have developed a letter that a number of organizations are signing on to, to help us push back. So that's an ongoing priority and something that Matt has been working with the rest of the team on. And as well as similar efforts in issues and potential concerns on the transportation side with respect to state DOTs and the Federal Highway Administration. You know, in addition to the big issues in Congress, there's a lot of granular issues that we're working on with respect to those issues and you know, tax issues and the tax deductability questions that are outstanding relative to firms that receive PPP loans and something that Katharine has been working on.
Matt Reiffer:
Yeah, I was going to say Katharine and I were a little late coming onto this call because we were just coming off a small firm roundtable with about 40, 45 participants, a really great forum for information sharing and helpful for us to listen to and hear what firms are experiencing. And yeah, there are a lot of interest in both of those issues. A lot of those firms took PPP loans, are interested in forgiveness, interested in the tax component of that as well as the potential impact on their overhead rates in terms of loan forgiveness and how that may be treated for federal state contractors. So yeah, very timely and yeah, very interesting.
Host:
Yeah, it's nonstop with government affairs right now. So I know it's we're coming on to about half an hour. I know you guys have a busy packed schedule, so I really appreciate you all taking the time to to appear on a kind of an oddly I guess just figure we live on Zoom now. Might as well tried to do a video interview instead of just the the, the good old audio podcast that we do. So thank you for being on. And again, this is Engineering Influence brought to you by the American Council of Engineering Companies. Katharine, Matt, Steve have a great Memorial Day weekend. Stay safe, stay healthy and and stay engaged with us 'cause we are off to the races. Just go to acec.org click on advocacy. It's right there on the homepage. It'll take you right there to the R3 advocacy page, all the resources that you need to take advantage of the grassroots campaign we're running. It's all there for you and just take advantage of it. So thank you all for being on.
Friday May 01, 2020
Friday May 01, 2020
Richard Branch, the Chief Economist for Dodge Data & Analytics stopped by the program to talk about the current state of the U.S. economy during the COVID-19 pandemic and what lies ahead for the A/E/C sector.
Friday Sep 27, 2019
Friday Sep 27, 2019
We were pleased to sit down with Rep. Rodney Davis (IL-3), the Ranking Member on the Highways Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Rep. Davis shared his thoughts on the prospects of an infrastructure bill this Congress and discussed the challenges and opportunities for bipartisan compromise in the weeks ahead. Davis also discussed his participation in the biennial "Longest Yard" congressional football game for charity played by Members of Congress and the Capitol Police. The Members won the game, and both teams raised $300,000 for local police charities in the process.
Transcript:
Host: Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast brought to you by the American Council of engineering companies. I am very pleased today to be coming from you in really the, I guess the hideaway office of Congressman Rodney Davis of Illinois. I'm a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee, but more impo rtantly, the winner or, or the, at least the trophy holder of the 2019 a congressional longest yard football championship - which is a great achievement, which is a biennial football game being put on for charity by between the Capitol police and members of Congress. Tell us a little bit about the charity cause I don't think a lot of people realize that this happens outside of Washington, that this, this is a, this is a biannual event.
Rep. Davis: Well for other reasons the baseball game has gotten a lot more attention over the last few years after the tragic shooting that we all went through in June of 2017. But we also have a congressional football game for charity where instead of like in baseball where Republicans and Democrats play against each other, we play on the same team against the guards. It's kinda based on, as you said, the longest yard movie. Uwe're supposed to be the ones, the convicts, but we bring some pros into some former NFL pros that help us coach and, and play with us. Ubut we really appreciate what the guards do on a regular basis. But there's a Capitol police Memorial fund that was started after the death of two officers in the late nineties here in Washington, D C where they were killed by a mentally ill gunman who came into the Capitol before. We had a lot of the security protocols that we now see in place that Capitol Police Memorial Fund gets money from this football game of what we raise.
Rep. Davis: Also a couple of other charities that are dedicated to helping veterans who come home and maybe be suffering through post traumatic stress syndrome. These are the, the, the charities that are funded by the record, $300,000 plus that we raised last night.
Rep. Davis: Yeah, that's fantastic.
Rep. Davis: And I think it's a, it's a good lesson for everyone listening outside the beltway that at the end of the day members of Congress come together for a good cause. No, we really do. And, and in the midst of an impeachment inquiry beginning, we, Republicans and Democrats played together on a field last night for charity. And I just hope your listeners and the American people realize that there's a lot more of that than what you see and hear in the news on the 24 hour news cycle. That's a good thing. And I want to thank the Capitol police for what they do everyday.
Rep. Davis: They protect millions of people a year that come through this Capitol complex. I also saw the Capitol police officers firsthand when in the midst of a, a shooting in the midst of a tragedy those officers ran toward the gunfire while we were all running away. That's courage. But that courage that courage exists to every day. And we know they're doing what they're trained to do. But also last night it was a night that although I respect everything they do, I'm damn glad we beat, them.
Host: It's always good to bring the, bring the trophy home.
Rep. Davis: Oh yeah. No, I'm not carrying it by any of those Capitol police at the guard stations.
Host: Unless you have to get down on the floor of the house and do the special order to...
Rep. Davis: That'll be tomorrow, tomorrow.
Host: Um well like you said, you know, there's a lot going on in Washington right now.
Host: A lot of it is political, but there's one issue which of course I think is, is largely bipartisan. Um historically has been, and that of course - that is infrastructure. You serve as the ranking member on the highway subcommittee of the transportation infrastructure...
Rep. Davis: The largest subcommittee in Congress, 59 members, 59 members.
Host: And of course, right now everybody is looking to see what's gonna happen with infrastructure next. The Senate has moved on their version of service bill before they broke for August recess. And now that they're back, you know, that process continues. What's your perspective and view in the house? What, where do you see this process going and what would you like to see come out of the session?
Rep. Davis: Sure. I'm glad the Senate took the first crack at it because I think it sends a message to the democratic leadership who I believe are holding up Chairman DeFazio from being able to offer up a solution on the house side.
Rep. Davis: You know, Peter DeFazio's, a good friend of mine Eleanor Holmes, Norton, the treasurer of the subcommittee that I'm the lead Republican on. And then our ranking member, Sam graves. If we were just given a chance to sit down and across the table from each other, we could have a bill done in a matter of days, if not hours. We can do that. The Senate did that. They did their work. We had Senator Carper over to speak to our transportation stakeholders meeting that Earl Blumenauer and I run on a regular basis. He was there today talking about their successes. But again, it all comes down to two things. Now. Number one, it's how do we pay for it? Because that Senate bill, it addresses nothing in the pay force. I mean, we can put good policies together on the, on the the authorizing side just like they did, but the appropriating side and the tax writing side that's going to be the most, the biggest part of our discussion.
Rep. Davis: That's one issue that's holding up progress. The second one is impeachment. Look. I've been a staffer during the Clinton impeachment. I've never been here during an impeachment. And from what I remember, the 90s, nothing gets done during impeachment.
Host: Everything just grinds to a halt.
Rep. Davis: Absolutely. And that's unfortunate because we ought to be able to come together on infrastructure. That's why I asked to be the ranking member on the highways and transit subcommittee. I, I know we've got a highway bill coming. We got to get together and come up with solutions.
Host: So even though, like you mentioned, things got even more partisan or more political last night with, with the announcement of this inquiry, there still can be work done by the committees by staff and the members. Um as you mentioned, T&I's an authorizing committee, you can only do so much when it comes to the question of funding.
Host: Yeah. How is we'll have a say in that funding source. Yeah. But what do you think is, is how is Ways and Means approaching this on, on the house side? What do you think.
Rep. Davis: They're not.
Host: They're not at all right now.
Rep. Davis: And that is a part of the problem.
Host: Do you think it's at least on their agenda or you think there's some reason why it's, it's being held up or frankly I can give you my perspective and my opinion on why it's being held up.
Rep. Davis: I think Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic leadership don't want to talk about infrastructure. They don't want to pass the USMCA right now because it gives president Trump a win against President Trump. Something to go talk about and being able to work together and get things done that matter to American families. And that's just as an ma matter to a group of engineers.
Rep. Davis: It just doesn't matter to a group of road builders. It just doesn't matter to a group of transit officials or members of Congress. It matters to every single American out there to have a better transportation network to get to and from work. But what matters in middle America sometimes doesn't matter to leaders in politics out here. And that's what sad. That's what I think is holding this up. It's just a sheer will of the Democrats not to give the president in a win. And that's unfortunate.
Host: Now I think going back home and, and for the perspective of your constituents back home, a lot of us talk about, and we hear all the time in Washington, the negative side of, of infrastructure, the roads are crumbling and the bridges are falling down. The flip side of that is what we could actually achieve if we actually invest in America's infrastructure. What kind of benefits would your constituents get from a well funded and longterm infrastructure bill?
Rep. Davis: Well, they're, they're going to see updates to their local transportation systems that they in many of their local officials have been calling for for years, if not decades. It's, it's being able to implement those longterm visions that have been part of a planning process that may be out dates even as long as we've been alive in many cases. You look at, you look at a us 67, for example, in the Southern part of my district, that long term project could be completed with an infrastructure bill. We could get the rest of US 67 funded and then the new and then the new Delhi bypass funded around Jerseyville that could really then complete that four lane corridor from you know, basically from the quad cities all the way down to st Louis.
Rep. Davis: That was a longterm goal that was put in place long before I ever got involved in politics and policy. But you don't have to look too far to see the benefits of what could happen. And we also can't forget how long of a, an outlook we have to have when it comes to infrastructure. Dave Bender and I have known each other for a very, very long time. And, and when I first started working right out of college, I was involved in an accident on route 29 that killed a young lady on December 23rd and I was a third car in the accident. I had went around, and got sprayed with debris, but that death of melody travelers started a group called project 29 in Taylorville, my hometown. And in 1992 and moving into 1993, when that group was started, if you would have asked us if we were okay with that project, finally getting done in 2016, we would have said, keep your money.
Rep. Davis: But we didn't. We got the first ever federal investment that was invested in 1998 that helped put that project on to governor Edgar's five-year plan. Then we had Illinois first, they invested more dollars to get four lanes on both ends of that 18 miles. It still need to be four lanes put in place. And then as we moved federal dollars into that project and as we moved more state dollars into that project, it finally got done in 2016. 1993 to 2016 but nobody in my hometown that drives that road says we regret investing in that project, but we got to be patient and we've got to continue to invest because eventually you get it done. And that's what an infrastructure bill can do.
Host: That's a really good point. And I think that the length of time from inception to project delivery is also something that is always on our minds.
Rep. Davis: Clearly the engineering portion, that's what keeps it. That's what it takes too long.
Rep. Davis: Do you see any, I'm moving on and making sure that we engineers don't have sense of humor. You didn't laugh at all. Terrible, terrible. A change order.
Host: But it's, it's, I guess the idea of cutting that project delivery timeline is something which the Senate address with one federal decision in, in, in their bill, in, in streamline of the environmental regulatory review process. How important will that be mirroring that or going further in the House?
Rep. Davis: You know, it's a step more than what we've already done. I mean, look, we have had so many successes in the six and a half years I'd been here when it comes to water infrastructure, when it comes to when it comes to water infrastructure, rail infrastructure, road infrastructure, we've done everything we can to really lessen the regulatory environment and speed up the permitting process.
Rep. Davis: Think about it with the Corps of engineers, when we first passed our first WRDA bill that we did when I got here to Congress in 2014, the average time it took from what I consider the paperwork process to the building process was 15 years average time. And I can only blame you engineer's for a portion of that. You know, so we, by law then what we did is we made sure that the Corps of Engineers knew that they had three years, three years. That's it. Otherwise, otherwise, you know, you're penalized. You got to three years by law to finish the project, that portion of the project. Then we get to the infrastructure investment itself much more quickly. Those are the types of things we've been able to do. So continuing down that process with what the Senate did I think is a great step. And we, we have to continue to identify where we lessen the regulatory burden and get to the point of laying concrete asphalt.
Host: I just have two more questions cause I wanna I want to make sure that we have votes coming up and I know you want to make sure that you hit them. The one question I have again on WRDA really is, is we're expecting that of course in 2020 and.
Rep. Davis: That will be my third WRDA bill when, I take full credit for finally passing where to bills because before I got here in 2013, nothing happened. It was Oh seven. So you're welcome.
Host: No problem. I guess question on process, and this might be speculative, but do you think that chairman DeFazio's going to keep the same process that chairman Schuster put in with the Chiefs Reports or you know, or that like that change?
Rep. Davis: Well, certainly I'd like to go a step further. Look, I'd like to be able to have members of Congress try to address issues in their own district like we used to.
Rep. Davis: I think it's a tragedy that when we, that we can't ask for any language. When it comes to war to authorization authorization, we are only authorizing dollars to be spent. No dollars are attached to a WRDA request. But somehow before I got here, those requests were labeled earmarks when they have $0 dollars attached. And what that has led to is been zero investment on the locks and dams in the Illinois and Mississippi waterways because I couldn't ask for it during the Obama administration and the Obama administration wouldn't ask to spend any money on it. So we had no recourse. It's all executive branch driven. Thankfully the Trump administration began to invest in the Illinois, Mississippi waterways. They're spending millions to upgrade LaGrange now. Now the problem I have is our producers are worried they won't get done in time. I'm like, that's a good problem to have.
Rep. Davis: Yeah, wait, we actually worried about spending money instead of getting money.
Host: So the final question I have for you is, did we win the game? Yes, we did. We're champions. So let a little bit later we're going to be meeting with some of our executives, some of our senior executives, Institute members. Yes.
Rep. Davis: Couple of them got to ride up on the elevator with me holding it.
Rep. Davis: They already gave you the elevator pitch.
Rep. Davis: They know I'm a champion.
Host: Did you let them hold the trophy? That's the big question.
Rep. Davis: I let them touch it.
Rep. Davis: All right. There you go. Hey, did given the fact that we talk a lot about the value of engineering and kind of the broader context of its, you know, value to society what's going to be your message to them when you, when you talk to them.
Rep. Davis: That we won the football game and clearly that's all I'm going to talk about.
Rep. Davis: You know, my messages, engineers by nature, by job, our longterm planners understand that we wouldn't, as policymakers, we wouldn't expect an engineer to give us a product that was not a longterm solution for the project they're working on or the building they're building. Don't expect us as policy makers to settle for short term funding solutions that don't address the volatility and the lack of funding and the highway trust fund and the long term outlook for what are, what are our you know, systems of mobility are going to look like in the next 10 years, which is basically a fancy way of saying don't just tell us to raise the gas tax.
Host: Got it. Well, Congressman, I really appreciate you being on the show. This is, you are the first member of Congress to appear on our podcast and it's a great way to kick it off.
Rep. Davis: Congressman Rodney Davis, he's a leader on and off the football field and good luck today.
Rep. Davis: Can I give a special shout out to...
Rep. Davis: Please do.
Rep. Davis: Bender -
Host: David our director of political affairs here is sitting out on the, on the sideline here.
Rep. Davis: Well, David has been a longtime friend. You guys couldn't ask for a better advocate out here in Washington. Now. And I also want to give a shout out to his replacement. Kevin Hardell. Kevin and I have worked together for years. He's going to do a great job fill in the shoes that, that Dave left as big shoes to fill. But you know what? You guys couldn't have two better people representing you at the state and the federal level. And I appreciate being able to work with both of them and I know, I know what they're capable of. And you guys have got a long term bright future with association.
Host: Dave's been great. I've been working with them since they came on and it's just been a fantastic experience. So I appreciate your time and thank you very much.
Rep. Davis: Thank you. And remind Kevin, I'm a champion. I will definitely
Friday Jun 07, 2019
Friday Jun 07, 2019
Jeff Urbanchuk sits down with Bloomberg Government's Shaun Courtney to discuss current affairs in Washington, what's happening in Congress and the prospects for an infrastructure bill.
Show Transcript:
Announcer: 00:00 Welcome to Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering companies with your host Jeff Urbanchuk
Host: 00:30 Welcome again, back to engineering influence, a podcast from the American Council of engineering companies. Very, very pleased to be joined today by Shaun Courtney of Bloomberg News. Another extremely good, example of reporting on infrastructure, which is timely, informative, and really matters, especially to the business community who we represent, the CEOs, the people who care about what's going on in Washington and how it affects their business. Shaun has appeared on the front page of the Washington Post. She's also written for investigative reporting workshop, Washingtonian, AOL news and Huffington post among others. So it's really great to have her on today. Welcome, Shaun.
Shaun Courtney:01:12 My pleasure to be here. Thanks so much for having me.
Host: 01:13 Oh, we are in kind of an interesting time because we've lived through yet another infrastructure week. Uh, we survived and were pretty much exactly where we were the last infrastructure week.
Shaun Courtney: 01:26 Yeah. I mean it's, it is a, it feels kind of like a Groundhog Day almost, which is unfortunate.
Host: 01:31 Yeah. Which, which kind of goes to, what's the mood like right now with, with the Hill? I mean after that meeting, what's the, what's the takeaway?
Shaun Courtney: 01:38 Yeah, I mean I think anybody who was hoping that there'd be like a deus ex machina and like Trump would somehow come through with a magical funding, uh, suggestion. Um, it's pretty deflated at this point and resigned to the fact that if there's going to be any kind of infrastructure legislation, it'll have to be the surface bill, um, that they have to pass before, um, you know, September 30th of 2020,
Host: 02:02 I guess the service Bill Fast Act II or Fast Act "plus" or how are they really want to call it. I mean that's still out there and that's probably the best mechanism to get this done. I know that Chairman DeFazio also kind of has an interest in a larger policy bill that kind of puts a lot of his ideas from, you know, the last congress and before that and then also potentially pennies for progress and things like that. Do you see that shaping up any way or does that kind of taking a sideline to we have to just focus on reauthorization?
Shaun Courtney: 02:33 Yeah, I mean, I think that he wants the reauthorization to be his big policy bill. He wants it to be a game changing reauthorization. He's not looking for incremental-ism, which I think is more what the Senate is moving towards, especially given how quickly they're trying to advance their bill. And that he has just been starting with a lot of these hearings. Um, penny for progress obviously is in the end up to Ways and Means, uh, and so think he's looking to do a heavier lift rather than just, you know, I'm scrounging around for some funds to cover the highway trust fund, which is what I expect the Senate to do.
Host: 03:08 Yeah. And that's, that's one of the things which was interesting, uh, for, um, some of our members who don't follow everything that closely is the fact that the policy piece coming out of the Hill and the special on the House side, that's, you know, T&I, and that's an authorizing committee. When you start talking about revenue, that's Ways and Means. Two separate committees, hopefully working together to try to come to some kind of compromise to get something done right and the same in the Senate. So it's a little bit more complicated than just putting together one bill in dealing with everything.
Shaun Courtney: 03:40 It is. And I, you know, the other thing that um, people should be looking at or thinking about as the appropriations process, which we're going through right now just next week, um, in the next week or so, we're going to have a markup of the THUD - the Transportation, HUD spending bill for the next fiscal year. And that, uh, if you talked to any appropriators will, they'll tell you that's the infrastructure bill because that's where the money's coming from and that's what you remember. So we'll be seeing sooner than they'll see anything out of the Fast Act or reauthorization or anything along those lines.
Host: 04:07 And even though the Senate kind of created the budget with kind of a carve out to address the highway trust fund, there is no guarantee that that's going to actually be addressed in any of the appropriations actions that they take.
Shaun Courtney: 04:19 Well, no, that's true. And you know, the appropriators know we'll have to find funds from somewhere and it's up to Ways and Means to allow them, I suppose to, to appropriate from the trust fund or they're going to have to appropriate from somewhere else. So it gets messy really fast. Um, but you know, I guess if you're trying to be a little bit of an optimist and you know, worrying about what's going to happen, at least there's an appropriations bill that's in the process and there's some money that's coming along, which means something for business in the short term.
Host: 04:48 Yeah. Uh, that's, there is something happening, which is the positive thing and it's, it's, it's, it's kind of interesting to see where things stand after that White House meeting where you had the president essentially saying, you know, I'm not going to play ball until you stop all the investigations. And of course you have, um, presidential politics kind of also feeding into this. Do you think there's anything that can happen that would get the president back to the negotiating table with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer? Or is that just kind of dead in the water?
Shaun Courtney: 05:21 I mean, I, he would just have to have a change of heart. I don't see there being any internal pressure from within the administration to move anything. Um, you know, there were a lot of concerns with congressional leaders that Mick Mulvaney was going to kind of derail their infrastructure negotiations and, and, um, you know, it seems like perhaps he was effective in getting that done when the president decided to walk out of that meeting. So yeah, I mean I don't, I'm not entirely sure what it would take to get him back on board. I know it's unfortunate, but you know, the stranger things have happened. I think that's the one thing about this administration is that you can't always call something, um, you know, at the end of the story that things can always come back and, and he can change his mind. So, you know, there's always that, I think there's always that glimmer of hope and a lot of groups are, are kind of hanging on that at this point. Yeah.
Host: 06:17 It seems like there, there's a lot of, you can never really tell week to week exactly what's going to be happening.
Shaun Courtney: 06:23 Right, exactly.
Host: 06:25 I, the one thing with the president never misses an opportunity to talk about is, you know, with the fact that he made his billions as a builder building things and how important infrastructure is. And the one thing that we heard, you know, we hear from the hill, from everybody from Steny Hoyer says it to, you know, rank and file, the Chamber downtown. Everybody says that nothing's going to happen without leadership from the White House.
Shaun Courtney: 06:49 Right. I mean, everybody seems to agree that, that, um, it just seems like if you talk to essentially Senate Republicans, I think that maybe they weren't necessarily looking for leadership, especially on a gas tax from the president, you know, it might've put them in an uncomfortable position actually, if, if he had backed it. So I think while there are a lot of groups pushing a lot of strange bedfellows as you mentioned, you know, you have the Chamber of Commerce and then you have labor, um, and you have the trucking association and labor and like their whole pushing for the same thing. Uh, but it's, it's just seems to fall on dead ears. And part of it I think is its Congressional Republicans who are concerned about the, um, the optics of having passed this tax bill and then raising taxes on the average person.
Host: 07:36 Which is an interesting thing because of course, you know, we know that historically, uh, there have been more Democrats in Congress had been pushing for a fix to the user fees and Republicans. And when the Republicans come out, they generally have to modify it or, or come up with another idea of asset recycling or something else, which is not directly an increase in taxes. But at the state level, we've been seeing a lot of activity, you know, over 30 states have dealt with the revenue question for them, you know, for their own states. And it's not all blue states. You know, there's a good amount of red there.
Shaun Courtney: 08:11 Right? There's, there's a range in and you even see referendums and then maybe that's part of that. I mean, I guess we could have a national referendum on if we want to have the gas tax, but um, barring that, I think it's, it's hard, but I think that is part of the reason why you're seeing this is that people are signaling to their leaders that this is something that they're willing to invest in because they'd been told where it's going to go. And I think that some people would say that at the national level, there's a concern about they're not sure where that money is going. um, and because earmarks are not a thing anymore, I can't be like, hey, that, that extra 5 cents you're paying at the pump went to fix that bridge, uh, in your neighborhood or in your city.
Host: 08:46 Which kind of brings up kind of two separate issues because at, you know, the, the question I always have is with all the states kind of taking it on themselves to do this, does it soften or weaken that age old opposition to increased taxes If you're a republican and a republican state with a Republican governor who's done it, you know, is that enough political cover to say, well maybe I can actually go in and vote for a user fee increase?
Shaun Courtney: 09:12 Yeah. I mean, I think for some people it could be, there's been some suggestion from conversations and no direct, um, you know, confirmation from Senator Roger Wicker, but it seems like he might be open to the idea of maybe passing a gas tax increase and he's from a red state and he's a Republican, and he's the head of the Commerce Committee and he'll have a role in passing a surface bill. Um, but then there are others who are just, um, kind of look at the states raising their or their own taxes and saying, well that seems, that seems right. The state should be paying for the roads they own most the roads, so why shouldn't they invest in them? So good for them, leave it up to them to invest.
Host: 09:49 Exactly. And that's, that's kind of the interesting balancing act. And you know, it's interesting because I think all the groups are coming together and they're saying the same thing that you've got to fix the trust fund, you have to increase the user fee or you know, index it, and it just doesn't seem to be moving the needle as much as we needed to. Is it, is it a question of the same old, same old or is it, is it, does something new have to happen do you see anyone out there that's kind of bringing up a new idea or is it just, just kind of, you know, the same thing?
Shaun Courtney: 10:18 I mean it seems it's mostly at the same thing. I mean it's different groups, right? That or as you were saying there that are pushing for it. Um, but it's the same people that you would expect to be concerned about raising a user fee, especially in the Senate. Um, and I, I think a lot of it falls on the lap of, of leader McConnell who has said that if the president backed a gas tax increase and said that, that an infrastructure proposal was his priority, uh, that he would, he would support it if there was support within his membership, but he is not coalescing people around it. And that's a really key, that's a really key person. I mean, he kind of runs the show as much as Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the House and she is, she is leading the conversation on a lot of these things, the house can only do so much and then, uh, and then it falls on deaf ears in the Senate. Um, and, and so that's, that's really the problem. And trying to convince him, especially when he's up for reelection, I think is, is a, a tough row to hoe.
Host: 11:15 And, and that kind of goes into the personalities of the chambers because you're absolutely right. I mean, in the Senate really it's leader McConnell who would have to really drive the conversation and get his membership behind him and reached a consensus to get something done. And on the House side, it's a little bit more regimented, I guess that you have of course Speaker Pelosi running the show. Um, and of course Chairman DeFazio really, you know, working on the committee side. How much flexibility do you think that that Chairman DeFazio has to kind of follow his policy goals? I mean, has he been given a fairly lane, the move, or is he, uh, you know, being held back by leadership at all?
Shaun Courtney: 11:58 Oh, I don't think he's being held back. Uh, I mean, I think he'd like things to be moving more aggressively than they are. And I think that maybe not with the house, but he's expressed some frustration, I think with some politics in the Senate. And I don't think he's just talking about later and McConnell. I think that there's a little bit of frustration perhaps with Senator Schumer based on just some comments that he is, he's made, uh, you know, Schumer was saying that if the president wants to raise the gas tax to pay for infrastructure, um, that they'd have to roll back the, some of the tax bill and DeFazio was like, that's a stupid 2020 talking point. I mean, so I think that within his own chamber, he feels confident that he has leadership behind him and that he can move a bill and, and he is able to work in a bipartisan manner, you know, he worked with, um, former chairman Shuster for years and they would, they would have their tiffs at the, you know, at the Das and then behind the scenes would, would work out a deal. And he knows how to do that and I think he's working closely with, um, now Ranking Member. Sam Graves. Um, so he is somebody who is capable of, of legislating and striking a bargain and being reasonable. And I think that his leadership and trust him to do that.
Host: 13:06 On the House side of the T&I Committee with the new Congress. Has the dynamic shifted at all? Like how has the relationship with Graves and DeFazio and among the subcommittee leadership, is it still fairly cordial?
Shaun Courtney: 13:20 It's my understanding that is, is that it's relatively cordial. Uh, you know, they're still working now, but I mean DeFazio's spent a long time in the minority and he knows what it's like. And I think that he is trying to be respectful while also still, you know, leading and, and pursuing his own policy goals. Uh, and so, you know, I, I think that so far he's been, you know, giving Representative Graves the heads-up when they're planning to do things, um, and, uh, giving them an opportunity to, um, to weigh in. So, and I think they are still working together on a surface bill and, you know, they've been working closely on these Boeing investigations, um, especially since Representative Graves is, um, you know, a pilot. Um, so I do think that they have a, a good working relationship. Um, and so we'll just have to see, you know, does that continue on, um, and for how long and, and, um, you know, there are going to be external factors that might affect their ability to cooperate.
Host: 14:15 Was it surprising when the president came out in that letter before the meeting where you essentially kind of put down that marker saying that, hey, you know, we asked, we will infrastructures the goal, but we got to do the USMCA first. Uh, it seems like infrastructures an easier get than a trade deal, especially given the environment we're in.
Shaun Courtney: 14:34 Yeah. I mean it, it seems, I mean when that letter came out the night before the meeting, anybody who's been covering this, this, uh, these negotiations, you know, it was just sort of banging your head against the table because they just realized that this is not going to go smoothly and, and it's going to become the, the joke infrastructure instead of the actually productive infrastructure week. Um, I don't think, I don't think many people anticipated that he would just walk out of the meeting and, and it's possible that that was being laid out there as like a bargaining tool, that he wanted to come into the meeting with some sort of leverage and was trying to change the optics because Democrats had been hammering on about how the president needed to come to that meeting with his ideas and his plan. Um, so it, it seems not like a good sign, but it didn't seem like a death knell or anything like that when it happened. Um, more of like a bargaining tactic, uh, and then, you know, things changed rapidly as they tend to do in these new cycles.
Host: 15:33 Rapidly is putting it lightly. I mean, I think it was, it was indication that, okay, that could be a bargaining chip. Maybe, you know, looking at it saying, okay, in the last meeting of walked out and some, somehow a $2 trillion number was agreed upon and that was something which I guess, you know, caused some consternation within, you know, the Republicans in the House or the Senate. And then they had to kind of figure out how do we, you know, bring this back. Right. Um, it was just kind of interesting to see that being laid out right before, like the evening before the meeting.
Shaun Courtney: 16:05 Yeah. And, and the letter itself, just the tone of it was, um, just on something you tend to see. Um, it was almost kind of measured in some ways. It was a, we're so used to tweets, you know, that it was, um, there was something about it that was kind of odd. It seemed like some, somebody else wrote it obviously, like the president wasn't writing and somebody in the staff is, but, um, somebody who is kind of more in depth on some of these negotiations, put it together. I don't, I don't know who did it, but, um, it struck me as something that might have even come out at DOT.
Host: 16:38 Yeah. We, we kind of talk about infrastructure week every year. It's something else that kind of eclipses it. And you know, really the debate on infrastructure being really focused on deficiencies. Right. This is how many bridges are deficient. This is how many roads fixed. Right. Do you think that there's a, a lack of the positive, the kind of look at what we can do together if we actually got together and cooperated and you know, for example, you'll look at some of the projects which, you know, we talk about that our members are doing, which were fairly significant that it doesn't really get talked about much by Members.
Shaun Courtney:17:18 Yeah. I mean, I think that it doesn't get talked about very much in Washington, you know, but they go home to their home districts and love a good ribbon cutting. You know I know somebody who was saying that they had a lawmaker coming out and to get them to come out, they had to put a ribbon around the bus stop this or that. Like, oh, he'd come out because it was a ribbon cutting and it was like, you know, we're celebrating that they added, I don't know, a certain number of new electric bus charging stations or something on those lines. Um, but you know, so they, they do like when there are projects that come out or anytime you see it like a grant notice DOT is constantly celebrating it and whoever gets it usually some appropriate or, um, it was very happy that they've gotten a new build grants, which used to be tiger or, um, in for a grant or something along those lines.
Shaun Courtney: 18:01 Um, so I think that there is some positive conversation, but to be perfectly honest, from a media perspective, uh, I'm not necessarily going to write a story about, um, the fact that members, so-and-so was really happy about the bridge in their district. Right. Where it might come into play was a, you know, if somebody was saying that they don't want to fund transit cause they don't think that their system benefits and then they wind up getting a big grant well then like that's something that you'd wind up covering.
Host: 18:30 Oh so it actually changed their mind or show that this could have a benefit.
Shaun Courtney: 18:33 Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I mean part of the issue is probably just that at least national level reporters are unlikely to report on that kind of thing. Local, local reporters will, you know, when there's, when you got a new grant for a big transit way, that's something you're going to cover.
Host: 18:46 Is there anything, I mean, for example, you know, our members are largely CEOs and they're really busy doing their job and monitoring their own businesses. Is there anything happening which they should really be paying attention to that may not be getting as much coverage as it ought to?
Shaun Courtney: 19:05 I mean, I think it is a wonky area, but I, I've talked a lot about appropriations. I think that is something where you should be paying attention, where, where is the money going? Who's benefiting from it and, and how is it being justified? So, you know, is Congress giving DOT a lot more instruction on how they should be spending this money? Which would signal to your CEO's that they should probably be adjusting how they're pitching their projects. Um, you know, uh, are, do they need to use a different kind of material because it's sustainable? Um, there's sort of a push towards that. Um, do they need to be thinking about, um, getting their supplies from us based companies versus a Chinese company? There's a lot of drama around that on the hill right now, which if you're not paying attention to and you have any kind of, um, role in infrastructure that has to do with like connectivity. Uh, you know, Huawei has been a really big issue. It was ZTE or if you're looking at kind of getting, um, we all projects or anything along those lines. The CRC and BYD companies are two that are, um, have come up in the news a lot. So I think that there, um, there, there are places like that where money is moving. Um, and it's coming out of DoD, which is setting the policy on where they want money to go. And then appropriators are also trying to tell DoD how to spend that money.
Host: 20:24 Yeah. And I think you raised a really good point, especially with when it comes to the technology side of things because infrastructure these days is not your old style, just bricks and mortar anymore. Now it's technology and are connected with everything else. So things that are happening in DOT yeah, that's important. But we also have to look at the other regulators.
Shaun Courtney: 20:44 True, true. Uh, you know, if you want to look where, you know, Department of Energy is focusing their efforts and other agencies that are, are looking to, um, improve the way the country is connecting to each other and um, smart roads and um, you know, better charging stations and things along those lines.
Host: 21:02 Yeah. The sustainability argument outside of the green new deal. I mean, that's probably the best example of somebody that's gotten a lot of attention. Has there been more of a focus or have a, actually, let me ask you, on the Republican side of things, have you noted sustainability? More resiliency was a big deal last congress has that kind of continued on. Is that, is is the idea of building in a sustainable fashion, a more resilient fashion something which is, um, caught a lot of traction.
Shaun Courtney: 21:31 I don't know if it, it caught a lot of traction, but I would say that people are starting to look at it and each side has its own justifications for it, right So you have the green, new deal, sort of environmental push from the Democrat side. And then on the republican side it's like, let's not waste our money. Let's stop building things that we're going to have to rebuild and five years, why not just do it right the first time, make a better investment now and have a better long-term return. And I think that you are seeing some of that. Uh, you know, it's a little bit of a side show, but there's been all these objections to the disaster aid bill, which includes flood insurance and some of the more conservative Republicans, especially the Freedom Caucus folks are particularly worried about just pouring money constantly into communities where maybe it doesn't make sense for people to live anymore or maybe if you're going to rebuild those houses you should build them to be fire resistant. Um, and so they want to make sure that the money is being spent wisely.
Shaun Courtney: 22:24 And so I think that there is a place on either side where they can come together and you may have some interesting folks pairing up on that.
Host: 22:32 Which is an interesting area for us because being engineers, it's more just the question of if you're going to build something, you have to build something to last. So it's more like dealing with the world the way it is. Not really entering into the politics of it, but just saying, if you're going to build a structure, you're wanting to do it in such a way where it's efficient, where it's going to last. We're just going to be resilient to the environment and, and kind of making that argument. And it's interesting how it's developing on the hill and, and how that kind of plugs in because you have kind of both sides, like you said, more of the social consciousness side on the Democrats and more of the dollars and cents side on the Republican side.
Shaun Courtney: 23:09 Right. And if you can get those two on the same page, then you might be able to get something done.
Host: 23:12 Yeah, exactly. Um, so the, one of the questions that also we have is that, you know, we do a lot of fly ins. We do a lot of meetings, you know, our members come in of course, for the convention that we just had they flood the Hill, they're having members of the member meetings at the state level, uh, in districts. Have you noticed, I mean, does that still move the needle? Has anything changed from your view or is, you know, the prevalence of social media, digital communications, is that offsetting some of it or is it still, you know, you can't beat a knock on the door?
Shaun Courtney: 23:48 I think it's both. Um, so I think that you need to both have a presence where you're knocking on the door and you're having a face to face time that you're getting, if not with the member or the senator with their Legislative Director, with the Legislative Assistant who focuses on your key issue areas. I'd like making it very clear to them why this matters to them and their district and the reelection. Uh, and then pressure on social media matters as well as you kind of have to partner both of those in order to be really effective.
Host: 24:16 Yeah. So the, among the topics that you cover, what, what's getting the most attention from your readers? What are you seeing the most focus on from, from the people who consume the information you put out?
Shaun Courtney: 24:27 Uh, I mean, this, this year there's been a ton of attention on airline safety and, well I should say aircraft safety really because of the, the Boeing crash in the grounding that that has been an important but a distraction to an extent from the agenda. I think that that, that they had had in terms of moving forward on looking at a surface bill. Um, and that's getting a lot of traction, you know, any kind of updates on that because it is a business focused and it's safety focused. You see, you kind of get just a ton of interest from, from both ends. You know, most people will fly at some point in the next year, you know, air, air traffic, um, has just keep kept increasing. Uh, and so, you know, people are thinking like, am I getting on a plane that's safe, you know? That's something you, you want to know.
Shaun Courtney: 25:11 Um, that's, that's getting a lot of attention. Um, and just because of Harvard leadership, um, anytime I write about something that has to do with the Gateway Project in New York, we get a ton of attention on that. And that's, that's the harbor bridge and tunnel that connects a New Jersey to Manhattan. And they're both in pretty dire straights. But trying to build a second bridge and build another tunnel and excuse me, uh, and, and, um, everybody's kind of saying like, oh, let's get collapsed at some point and trying to get it done. But there's a lot of politics behind that. So like the politics, the, the business in New York that, that's just the natural traffic driver.
Host: 25:48 Do you think that's a standoff based on personalities between Schumer and Trump or is policy or,
Shaun Courtney: 25:54 I think it's a ton of a standoff between Trump and, um, and she wore it and I think it has become a policy argument because of that. So I think that, um, DOT, you have seen them kind of a pull back a little bit on funding for transit projects and, and rail investment, um, especially in urban areas. And part of that was trying to choke off the funds for the Gateway Project and it happened to be that that also affected other cities. And then there wasn't necessarily a distaste for that. Oh. Among some conservative members and, and within the administration. So, um, it's kind of a little bit of both.
Host: 26:32 Yeah, it seems like that could be a, I almost see that as a linchpin. You solve gateway and then we might have a clear path for a lot of infrastructure.
Shaun Courtney: 26:43 Oh yeah. I think so. But I mean that's like a, that's the personality and then that's, that's the big question with the president. So, um, yeah, I mean, I think that if Schumer could get gateway covered, I don't know. I don't know. What do you give up for that? And I don't know. I mean, I think that he'd get a lot of pressure from Pelosi and others not to give like the wall for that. Um, but it is a huge issue for him and it's become very personal.
Host: 27:07 Yeah. It's really interesting, the dynamics in Washington when it comes down to this stuff because it's, it's, it's the same groups that a lot of, a lot of institutional memory and there's a lot of, you know, this was when things get really personal or regional because everybody kind of wants to have their money or in their projects and their in their region.
Shaun Courtney: 27:24 Right.
Host: 27:25 Which goes back to the idea of earmarks because that was the easiest way. WRDA was easy to do when you had were earmarks and you had to kind of reinvent the wheel in a, in a post earmark environment and then, you know, used to have these bills. And do you see any inkling of a return to, you know, project specific funding?
Shaun Courtney: 27:45 You know, uh, Chairman DeFazio is very open to that idea and was trying to get that approved early on that there could be earmarks. And Nita Lowey who's the head of appropriations, um, essentially said, no, we're not gonna do that. Um, but it's possible that he might get a special permission to be able to do that for a surface bill. Um, and, and he said he wants to do it differently from how they were done before. And it would be very transparent that each member would put on, uh, like post online, what they're requesting, their justification for it, have some sort of numbers from their state DOT's saying why this was something that they needed and, and, uh, how much local money was going into it. So that, so that if anybody had any questions, they could, they could see, you know, how the, how the sausage was getting made, essentially.
Host: 28:30 I didn't, I didn't realize that that was, that was in the offing - a possible dispensation.
Shaun Courtney: 28:36 Yeah. I mean he's talked about it and we'll see what it comes down to in the end. Um, but I haven't heard him close that door entirely. And, um, the idea that he might be able to get it just for a specific bill is interesting. Uh, it might've been easier or it might be easier if it's a bill that the president's backing. Right. Um, and so there's, there's, uh, you know, everything is in question. Um, but, um, I, I have not heard him completely closed.
Host: 29:03 Well that's, that's, that's going to be interesting to see how that develops as well as everything else from appropriations to president and where he stands on things, the 2020 campaign and whether anybody's, I mean other than John Delaney, you know, coming out with his plan, right. If anyone else is going to be coming out with something and then just, you know, the clock is ticking on the schedule. We're getting close to August and then you know, things get a little bit tight.
Shaun Courtney: 29:27 I know it, it's possible maybe September but um, everybody kind of thinks after that we're not going to see much activity. And so then do we get a extension on a surface bill or, or what happens and, and that's a big question I think that everybody has in our minds. Do you want to be in the same situation you are a couple of years ago where you're just doing an extension extension extension, right? Right. Yeah, exactly. And that didn't really work well with the FAA bill for a while cause it, we kept on doing that. It was just like, you know, plugging, plugging a hole and then call in and didn't create any stability or predictability for people to be able to plan out longterm projects. This is your members now, these things you need the predictability of the funding stream.
Host: 30:04 Absolutely. Well, there's going to be a lot to look at. Um, and the news is going to be developing quickly. Uh, and you can definitely catch, uh, Shaun's reporting on this because you know, she'll be on top of it as it develops. So really, um, and also on Twitter, what's your Twitter handle again? It says, @SCourtneyDC. So follow her on Twitter, read her reporting in Bloomberg, um, and just, you know, stay on top of it because things can change very quickly in Washington and especially these days. You don't know what's going to happen from week to week. So, um, uh, Shawn, thank you again for coming on the show. Thanks for having me. And, uh, we'll be, uh, keeping watch on, uh, what happens in Washington.